What to do about the broken btree_gist for inet/cidr?
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | What to do about the broken btree_gist for inet/cidr? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7891efc1-8378-2cf2-617b-4143848ec895@proxel.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: What to do about the broken btree_gist for inet/cidr?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, As discussed in this thread (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/201010112055.o9BKtZf7011251@wwwmaster.postgresql.org) btree_gist is broken for the inet and cidr types. The reason is that it uses convert_network_to_scalar() to make a lossy GiST index, but convert_network_to_scalar() throws away the netmask which is necessary to preserve the correct sort order of the keys. This has been broken for as long as we have had btree_gist indexes over inet. And personally I am not a fan of PostgreSQL shipping with known broken features. But it is also not obvious to me what the best way to fix it is. To refresh my memory I quickly hacked together a proof of concept patch which adds a couple of test cases to reproduce the bug plus uses basically the same implementation of the btree_gist as text and numeric, which changes to index keys from 64 bit floats to a variable sized bytea. This means that the indexes are no longer lossy. Some questions/thoughts: Is it even worth fixing btree_gist for inet when we already have inet_ops which can do more things and is not broken. We could just deprecate and then rip out gist_inet_ops? If we are going to fix it I cannot see any reasonably sized fix which does not also corrupt all existing indexes on inet, even those which do not contain any net masks (those which contain netmasks are already broken anyway). Do we have some way to handle this kind of breakage nicely? I see two ways to fix the inet indexes, either do as in my PoC patch and make the indexes no longer lossy. This will make it more similar to how btree_gist works for other data types but requires us to change the storage type of the index keys, but since all indexes will break anyway that might not be an issue. The other way is to implement correct lossy indexes, using something similar to what network_abbrev_convert() does. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Andreas
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: