On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. I did add a regression test for the specific case of '30 days'
> vs '1 month', which we know is a pain point for this particular data
> type. Generating values at random doesn't seem like it's really likely
> to teach us much though.
Yeah
Greg Stark writes:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The present implementation of interval_hash() is very carefully designed
>> and coded ... to meet the wrong specification :-(. What it should
>> be doing is producing equal hashcodes for values that interval_eq()
>> consider
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The present implementation of interval_hash() is very carefully designed
> and coded ... to meet the wrong specification :-(. What it should
> be doing is producing equal hashcodes for values that interval_eq()
> considers equal. The error is ex
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I don't think there's a whole lot of choice in the matter. We have to
> patch this, and put in the next release notes "if you have any hash
> indexes on interval columns, REINDEX them after updating". Does anyone
> see it differently, or have s
The present implementation of interval_hash() is very carefully designed
and coded ... to meet the wrong specification :-(. What it should
be doing is producing equal hashcodes for values that interval_eq()
considers equal. The error is exhibited in the recent bug report #4748.
Attached is a pro
