Re: GiST support for UUIDs
От | Chris Bandy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GiST support for UUIDs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMDg7WzsR0FRbZwu97a92GZvBXuPOheSY4mV3m=yjRMquV5pvA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GiST support for UUIDs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: GiST support for UUIDs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > What I would suggest is that you forget the union hack and just use > memcmp in all the comparison functions. It's not likely to be worth > the trouble to try to get those calls to be safely aligned. The > only place where you need go to any trouble is in uuid_parts_distance, > which could be redesigned to memcpy a not-necessarily-aligned source > into a local uint64[2] array and then byte-swap if needed. Done. I only have one architecture to test on (Linux, Intel x86_64) so I must defer to others in this regard. > I don't entirely see the point of making pg_uuid_t an opaque struct when > the only interesting thing about it, namely UUID_LEN, is exposed anyway. > So my inclination would be to just do > > typedef struct pg_uuid_t > { > unsigned char data[UUID_LEN]; > } pg_uuid_t; > > in uuid.h and forget the idea of it being opaque. Done. > Also, the patch could be made a good deal smaller (and easier to review) > in the wake of commit 40b449ae8: you no longer need to convert > btree_gist--1.2.sql into btree_gist--1.3.sql, just leave it alone and add > btree_gist--1.2--1.3.sql. That way we don't have to worry about whether > the upgrade script matches the change in the base script. Done. -- Chris
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: