On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Meanwhile, I looked at the v3 patch, and it seems like it might not be > too far from committable. I think we should *not* let this get bogged > down in questions of whether EXPLAIN can report which index quals were > used or ignored. That's a problem that's existed for decades in the > btree code, with more or less zero user complaints. > > I do think v3 needs more attention to comments, for instance this > hunk is clearly falsifying the adjacent comment: > > @ -141,7 +141,8 @@ ginFillScanKey(GinScanOpaque so, OffsetNumber attnum, > uint32 i; > > /* Non-default search modes add one "hidden" entry to each key */ > - if (searchMode != GIN_SEARCH_MODE_DEFAULT) > + if (searchMode != GIN_SEARCH_MODE_DEFAULT && > + (searchMode != GIN_SEARCH_MODE_ALL || nQueryValues)) > nQueryValues++; > key->nentries = nQueryValues; > key->nuserentries = nUserQueryValues; > > Also, I agree with Julien that this > > + so->forcedRecheck = key->triConsistentFn(key) != > GIN_TRUE; > > probably needs to be > > + so->forcedRecheck |= key->triConsistentFn(key) != > GIN_TRUE;
Ping, Julien? Based on the above, it looks like if we had a last-minute patch addressing the above this could go directly to Ready for Committer? I will hold off moving this one to CF2 until my morning. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
