Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Borisov
Тема Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index
Дата
Msg-id CALT9ZEGWbX0c=DqjoLhD_LraA0fqSuwyEySr1HQtzwp9Tug8VQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index  ("Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>)
Ответы Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index  ("Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
But let's change macro a bit. When I see
SGLT_SET_OFFSET(leafTuple->nextOffset, InvalidOffsetNumber);
I expect that leafTuple->nextOffset is function argument by value and will not be changed.
For example see ItemPointerSetOffsetNumber() - it's not exposing ip_posid.

Also, I'd propose instead of
>*(leafChainDatums + i * natts) and leafChainIsnulls + i * natts
using something like
>int some_index = i * natts;
>leafChainDatumsp[some_index] and &leafChainIsnulls[some_index]
But, probably, it's a matter of taste...

Also I'm not sure would it be helpful to use instead of
>isnull[0] and leafDatum[0]
more complex
>#define SpgKeyIndex 0
>isnull[SpgKeyIndex] and leafDatum[SpgKeyIndex]
There is so many [0] in the patch...
I agree with all of your proposals and integrated them into v9.
Thank you very much!

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Use T_IntList for uint32
Следующее
От: Pavel Borisov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo)