Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQu0a-0000on-Sk for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:08:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQu0Z-0002rV-SE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:08:35 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQu0Z-0002rO-Lh for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:08:35 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQu0X-0000JH-D9 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:08:34 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQu0W-00069l-2Q; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:08:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:08:32 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" Cc: Tom Lane , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation Message-ID: <20201009150832.GB1459@momjian.us> References: <20201008162310.GA13054@momjian.us> <2622731.1602186212@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20201008195352.GA5062@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 05:44:57AM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > Hi Bruce, Tom, > > On Thu, Oct  8, 2020 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" writes: > >> >> I was hoping someone more experienced with this would comment, but > >> >> seeing none, I will apply it in a day or two to all supported versions? > >> >> Have you tested this output back to 9.5? > >> > >> > I hoped that as well. No, I tested down to 9.6 because the change happened in 10. > >> > >> The patch assumes that parallel query is enabled, which is not true by > >> default before v10, so it should certainly not be applied before v10 > >> (at least not without significant revisions). > > Yes, the behavior change was in 10. Before 10 the example is fine, I would not apply that to any prior version, otherwise the whole example needs to be rewritten. Agreed. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee