Hello Jamie and Tom.
Thank you very much for the feedback and reviews. I will attempt to
answer all the questions I found in this thread in this one email. If I
miss any questions, let me know and I will answer it :)
Jamie: Thanks for the feedback on missing comments. I will go back
and add
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Ryan Bradetich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you read the comments around that stuff it leaves quite a lot to be
desired, but I don't really have better ideas at the moment. The best
near-term solution for the uint module is probably not to rely on
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it would be nice to use B-M(-H) for LIKE as well.
Right offhand, that seems impossible, at least in patterns with %.
Or were you thinking of trying to separate out the fixed substrings
of a pattern and search for them with
It is nice test case. It should be part of hash index regression test.
Zdenek
Alex Hunsaker napsal(a):
Ok now that I made it so it actually *test* collisions, with the patch
it always returns all rows that matched the hashed key. For example
(non lobotomized inthash8, I just brute
Tom Lane napsal(a):
Alex Hunsaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Alex Hunsaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok now that I made it so it actually *test* collisions, with the patch
it always returns all rows that matched the hashed key.
And here is the fix, we just
Hello Jaime,
the same problem happens in joins, unions, hash, etc... so you have to
look at those functions as well
Great! Added to the list to check. I am planning to build regression tests
for these types to catch these errors in the future. Thanks again for your
testing and review!
PS:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I attach cleanup patch which we discussed last commit fest. It introduce new
macros HashGetMetaPage and HashGetBitmap and of course, it break backward on
disk format compatibility which we will break it anyway when Xiao's patch
will
be committed.
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Included patch with the following changes:
* new postmaster mode known as consistent recovery, entered only when
recovery passes safe/consistent point. InRedo is now set in all
processes when started/connected in consistent recovery mode.
I looked at
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Included patch with the following changes:
* new postmaster mode known as consistent recovery, entered only when
recovery passes safe/consistent point. InRedo is now set in all
processes when
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm, I dunno, it seems like that might be a bad choice. Are you sure
it's not cleaner to just use the regular checkpoint code?
When I tried to write it, it just looked to my eyes like every single
line
Heikki Linnakangas Wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, it would be nice to use B-M(-H) for LIKE as well.
Right offhand, that seems impossible, at least in patterns with %.
Or were you thinking of trying to separate out the fixed substrings
of a
Hello Jaime,
why i need the cast in this case? even if the cast is really necesary
(the message seems realy ugly)
contrib_regression=# select * from t1 where f1 35;
ERROR: unsupported type: 16486
contrib_regression=# select * from t1 where f1 35::uint4;
f1
-
36
37
38
Can
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Ryan Bradetich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you send me the test case that generates this error?
My regression tests do not include a table t1 so I was not able
to reproduce this error directly.
yeah! that table is mine! here are the scripts...
13 matches
Mail list logo
