pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:06:43 +0300
Message-ID: <57079ED3.5000704@sigaev.ru> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAM3SWZSBEqkTLYBvJYXjUcyt2BJLyBRWC2CmriZYGW9FwAxZHA@mail.gmail.com >
References: <56167F09.3090101@postgrespro.ru >
<56B0A61A.2030808@postgrespro.ru >
<56BCBAE0.2080102@postgrespro.ru >
<CAMkU=1zAr_jDAEk8QoxaMbGM=mdjbqGnhJqJzL+s1tVs5yREpQ@mail.gmail.com >
<56D46114.9090205@postgrespro.ru >
<56D5C970.6020002@postgrespro.ru >
<56D5CCFC.1020507@postgrespro.ru >
<CAB7nPqQa4HZ8QZaYB5zVWkYv6TFpBgY7QtemyRuJ2AJhbcNOUQ@mail.gmail.com >
<56E6C35A.2050502@postgrespro.ru >
<56EBF17E.2020702@pgmasters.net >
<CAM3SWZS4nbTn=Ji=MOx5ft7Y9d+49x62N0xGadYav0BjfATUZA@mail.gmail.com >
<56F0271D.5010004@postgrespro.ru >
<CAM3SWZTfBosvae8Gh6AESRVKT3Fad7XcDkhZSbEqazZPE81rwQ@mail.gmail.com >
<5703D236.1090907@postgrespro.ru >
<CAM3SWZRheiMRFWmZ39X=G=w0WgZq5qqiyFAzCMg4jBpMPMsTJA@mail.gmail.com >
<CAM3SWZQLLYajNy-5K702RTWMeRkUEEBtYJbb+ifYRQOCHNx6=A@mail.gmail.com >
<57050BFE.7020805@postgrespro.ru >
<CAM3SWZQZmo-Si1QGmmqwHTTOO22SNFVjLnjLB=adXBmrTGSRFg@mail.gmail.com >
<CAM3SWZSBEqkTLYBvJYXjUcyt2BJLyBRWC2CmriZYGW9FwAxZHA@mail.gmail.com >
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write
>> assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going
>> *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an
>> assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just
>> a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all.
>
> You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to
> always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this,
> IMV.
>
Some notices:
- index_truncate_tuple(Relation idxrel, IndexTuple olditup, int indnatts,
int indnkeyatts)
Why we need indnatts/indnkeyatts? They are presented in idxrel struct
already
- follow code where index_truncate_tuple() is called, it should never called in
case where indnatts == indnkeyatts. So, indnkeyatts should be strictly less
than indnatts, pls, change assertion. If they are equal the this function
becomes complicated variant of CopyIndexTuple()
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
view thread (217+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <57079ED3.5000704@sigaev.ru>
Permalink: ../57079ED3.5000704@sigaev.ru/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/57079ED3.5000704@sigaev.ru
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: teodor@sigaev.ru, a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru, pg@heroku.com, david@pgmasters.net, michael.paquier@gmail.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
In-Reply-To: <57079ED3.5000704@sigaev.ru>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox