On 2018-Jul-27, David Rowley wrote:
> On 27 July 2018 at 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, my thinking is that it helps nobody if call sites have to have
> > explicit workarounds for a totally-arbitrary refusal to handle edge
> > cases in the primitive functions. I do not think that is good soft
On 27 July 2018 at 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2018/07/27 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
(BTW, I'm not sure that it was wise to design bms_add_range to fail for
empty ranges. Maybe it'd be better to redefine it as a no-o
On 2018/07/27 12:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2018/07/27 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
(BTW, I'm not sure that it was wise to design bms_add_range to fail for
empty ranges. Maybe it'd be better to redefine it as a no-op for
David Rowley writes:
> On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/07/27 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (BTW, I'm not sure that it was wise to design bms_add_range to fail for
>>> empty ranges. Maybe it'd be better to redefine it as a no-op for
>>> upper < lower?)
>> FWIW, I was thankfu
On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/07/27 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (BTW, I'm not sure that it was wise to design bms_add_range to fail for
>> empty ranges. Maybe it'd be better to redefine it as a no-op for
>> upper < lower?)
>
> FWIW, I was thankful that David those left thos
On 2018/07/27 1:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
>> I am getting "ERROR: negative bitmapset member not allowed" when
>> enable_partition_pruning set to true with below test case.
Thanks Rajkumar.
> Confirmed here. It's failing in perform_pruning_combine_step,
> which reaches
Rajkumar Raghuwanshi writes:
> I am getting "ERROR: negative bitmapset member not allowed" when
> enable_partition_pruning set to true with below test case.
Confirmed here. It's failing in perform_pruning_combine_step,
which reaches this:
result->bound_offsets = bms_add_range(NULL, 0,
