On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:31:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed, that's pretty broken, and it's not just that it risks an
> invalid access. I don't think this reliably rejects cases where
> one index has an expression and the other doesn't. Even if it does
> work, it's way too complicated to convince oneself that that's
> rejected. I think for clarity we should code it as attached.
- /* ignore expressions at this stage */
- if ((info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] != InvalidAttrNumber) &&
- (attmap->attnums[info2->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] - 1] !=
- info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i]))
- return false;
+ /* ignore expressions for now (but check their collation/opfamily) */
+ if (!(info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] == InvalidAttrNumber &&
+ info2->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] == InvalidAttrNumber))
+ {
+ /* fail if just one index has an expression in this column */
+ if (info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] == InvalidAttrNumber ||
+ info2->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i] == InvalidAttrNumber)
+ return false;
I can see that this has already been committed as 9f71e10d65, but are
you sure that this is correct? I didn't take the time to reply back,
because I got the feeling that even what I proposed is not correct.
The previous code was careful enough to look at the information from
info2 only *through* the attribute map, which is not what this new
code is doing. Rather than looking directly at the elements in info2
at each iteration, shouldn't this stuff loop over the elements in
attmap->attnums for each info1->ii_IndexAttrNumbers[i]?
--
Michael