Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c33BR-00057G-Cv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:47:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c33BQ-0002wX-Cs for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:47:04 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c33BO-0002wO-PQ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c33BI-0000rn-7Y for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:47:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uA5Fkp7U027221; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:46:51 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: emre@hasegeli.com, PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums In-reply-to: <03f7d748-0f89-e8e1-094d-f04e1026b93d@dunslane.net> References: <56EA8A71.8060107@dunslane.net> <56EACB8C.1040406@dunslane.net> <03f7d748-0f89-e8e1-094d-f04e1026b93d@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:26:33 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27219.1478360811.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:46:51 -0400 Message-ID: <27220.1478360811@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andrew Dunstan writes: > The real problem here is that enum_cmp_internal assumes that > fcinfo->flinfo has been set up, and DirectFunctionCallN doesn't, it sets > it to NULL. > The patch below cures the problem. I'm not sure if there is a better > way. Thoughts? That may be a good fix for robustness purposes, but it seems pretty horrid from an efficiency standpoint. Where is this call, and should we be modifying it to provide a flinfo? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers