[HACKERS] Patch to fix documentation about AFTER triggers

2017-05-12 Thread Paul Jungwirth
Here is a patch to amend the docs here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/plpgsql-trigger.html In the example for an AFTER trigger, you see this code: -- -- Create a row in emp_audit to reflect the operation performed on emp, -- make use of the special variable TG_OP to w

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GiST support for UUIDs

2016-02-05 Thread Paul Jungwirth
On 12/25/2015 03:23 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:34:25 +0300 Teodor Sigaev wrote: First, variables (high and low) should not be declared in the middle of code. Second, assert will fail if ua.v64[0] == ub.v64[0] and ua.v64[1] > ub.v64[1] although it's a possible and allow

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GiST support for UUIDs

2015-12-23 Thread Paul Jungwirth
On 12/23/2015 08:10 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: There is a more improved version of the patch. Main idea is to present uuid as two uint64 values, and make comparisons and penalty calculation based on these values. This approach is much faster than using memcmp for uuid comparisons. Thank you

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GiST support for UUIDs

2015-09-14 Thread Paul Jungwirth
Or something like this in pseudocode: numeric = int8_numeric(*(uint64 *)(&i->data[0])) * int8_numeric(MAX_INT64) + int8_numeric(*(uint64 *)(&i->data[8])) This is more like what I was hoping for, rather than converting to a string and back. Would you mind confirming for me: int8_numeric turns a

Re: [HACKERS] Review: GiST support for UUIDs

2015-09-14 Thread Paul Jungwirth
2) static double uuid2num(const pg_uuid_t *i) { return *((uint64 *)i); } It isn't looked as correct transformation for me. May be, it's better to transform to numeric type (UUID looks like a 16-digit hexademical number) and follow gbt_numeric_penalty() log