Oleg Bartunov <o...@sai.msu.su> writes:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, that case works (though I think it's unnecessarily slow). The one
>> that gives the wrong answer is the equivalent form with two AND'ed @@
>> operators.
> hmm, that query works too :)
There may be some platform dependency involved --- in particular, you
wouldn't see the issue unless one keystream has two nonlossy TIDs on the
same page as the other one has a lossy TID, so it's going to depend on
the placement of heap rows. Anyway, I can reproduce it just by loading
the given dump, on both 8.4 and HEAD. Will work on a fix.
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
