Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdtcVkX6CAL-dZj9WVUY6-RQhjdyYxiuV+eObrFGRm0v1w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:19 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-Sep-03, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > I think patches 0001-0008 are very clear and extends our index-AM > > infrastructure in query straightforward way. I'm going to propose > > them for commit after some further polishing. > > Hmm. Why is 0001 needed? I see that 0005 introduces a call to that > function, but if attnum == 0 then it doesn't call it. Maybe it was > necessary in an older version of the patch? Regarding "attno >= 1" check I agree with you. It should be changed to assert. But "attno <= rd_index->indnkeyatts" check appears to be needed for current code already. It appears that gistproperty() can ask get_index_column_opclass() for non-key attribute. Then get_index_column_opclass() returns garbage past oidvector value. Typically get_opclass_opfamily_and_input_type() doesn't find this garbage opclass oid and gistproperty() returns null as expected. But this is bug and needs to be fixed. I'm going to push 0001 changing "attno >= 1" to assert. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: