Re: possible wierd boolean bug?

"Merlin Moncure"  writes:
> I confirmed the problem on a linux server running beta3...so this
> problem is quite reproducible by running the attached scripts on a
> freshly loaded database.

The attached patch fixes the problem for me.
		regards, tom lane

*** src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c.orig	Sun Aug 29 01:06:40 2004
--- src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c	Wed Dec 15 14:00:59 2004
***************
*** 224,234 **** 	BTScanOpaque so = (BTScanOpaque) scan->opaque; 	int			numberOfKeys = scan->numberOfKeys; 	int			new_numberOfKeys; 	ScanKey		inkeys; 	ScanKey		outkeys; 	ScanKey		cur; 	ScanKey		xform[BTMaxStrategyNumber];
- 	bool		allEqualSoFar; 	bool		hasOtherTypeEqual; 	Datum		test; 	int			i,
--- 224,234 ---- 	BTScanOpaque so = (BTScanOpaque) scan->opaque; 	int			numberOfKeys = scan->numberOfKeys; 	int			new_numberOfKeys;
+ 	int			numberOfEqualCols; 	ScanKey		inkeys; 	ScanKey		outkeys; 	ScanKey		cur; 	ScanKey		xform[BTMaxStrategyNumber]; 	bool		hasOtherTypeEqual; 	Datum		test; 	int			i,
***************
*** 278,284 **** 	 * Otherwise, do the full set of pushups. 	 */ 	new_numberOfKeys = 0;
! 	allEqualSoFar = true;  	/* 	 * Initialize for processing of keys for attr 1.
--- 278,284 ---- 	 * Otherwise, do the full set of pushups. 	 */ 	new_numberOfKeys = 0;
! 	numberOfEqualCols = 0;  	/* 	 * Initialize for processing of keys for attr 1.
***************
*** 321,327 **** 		 */ 		if (i == numberOfKeys || cur->sk_attno != attno) 		{
! 			bool		priorAllEqualSoFar = allEqualSoFar;  			/* check input keys are correctly ordered */ 			if (i < numberOfKeys && cur->sk_attno != attno + 1)
--- 321,327 ---- 		 */ 		if (i == numberOfKeys || cur->sk_attno != attno) 		{
! 			int			priorNumberOfEqualCols = numberOfEqualCols;  			/* check input keys are correctly ordered */ 			if (i < numberOfKeys && cur->sk_attno != attno + 1)
***************
*** 355,368 **** 				xform[BTLessEqualStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL; 				xform[BTGreaterEqualStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL; 				xform[BTGreaterStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL; 			} 			else 			{
! 				/*
! 				 * If no "=" for this key, we're done with required keys
! 				 */
! 				if (!hasOtherTypeEqual)
! 					allEqualSoFar = false; 			}  			/* keep only one of <, <= */
--- 355,368 ---- 				xform[BTLessEqualStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL; 				xform[BTGreaterEqualStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL; 				xform[BTGreaterStrategyNumber - 1] = NULL;
+ 				/* track number of attrs for which we have "=" keys */
+ 				numberOfEqualCols++; 			} 			else 			{
! 				/* track number of attrs for which we have "=" keys */
! 				if (hasOtherTypeEqual)
! 					numberOfEqualCols++; 			}  			/* keep only one of <, <= */
***************
*** 411,417 **** 			 * If all attrs before this one had "=", include these keys 			 * into the required-keys count. 			 */
! 			if (priorAllEqualSoFar) 				so->numberOfRequiredKeys = new_numberOfKeys;  			/*
--- 411,417 ---- 			 * If all attrs before this one had "=", include these keys 			 * into the required-keys count. 			 */
! 			if (priorNumberOfEqualCols == attno - 1) 				so->numberOfRequiredKeys = new_numberOfKeys;  			/*
***************
*** 468,475 **** 	 * If unique index and we have equality keys for all columns, set 	 * keys_are_unique flag for higher levels. 	 */
! 	if (allEqualSoFar && relation->rd_index->indisunique &&
! 		relation->rd_rel->relnatts == new_numberOfKeys) 		scan->keys_are_unique = true; } 
--- 468,475 ---- 	 * If unique index and we have equality keys for all columns, set 	 * keys_are_unique flag for higher levels. 	 */
! 	if (relation->rd_index->indisunique &&
! 		relation->rd_rel->relnatts == numberOfEqualCols) 		scan->keys_are_unique = true; }