Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Uh. They're different:
>> >
>> > Datum
>> > timestamp_hash(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
>> > {
>> >         /* We can use either hashint8 or hashfloat8 directly */
>> > #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
>> >         return hashint8(fcinfo);
>> > #else
>> >         return hashfloat8(fcinfo);
>> > #endif
>> > }
>> > note it's passing fcinfo, not the datum as you do. Same with
>> > time_hash.. In fact your version crashes when used because it's
>> > dereferencing a int8 as a pointer inside hashfloat8.
>> Thanks, didn't notice that fcinfo was used.
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> If helps, I added some regression tests to the lastest patch.

+DATA(insert OID = 3260 (    403        pglsn_ops        PGNSP PGUID ));
+DATA(insert OID = 3261 (    405        pglsn_ops        PGNSP PGUID ));

The patch looks good to me except the name of index operator class.
I think that "pg_lsn_ops" is better than "pglsn_ops" because it's for "pg_lsn"
data type.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao