On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I noticed all that, but didn't feel like putting in the effort to make >> it better. I would have been happy to have someone else pick up the >> patch, but as it had been languishing I thought it would be better to >> get it committed more or less as it was than to wait for someone to >> have time to make it beautiful. If you want to hack on it more that's >> fine with me. I kind of wonder if we ought to rename the variables, >> and maybe turn sum_grow into a boolean. But I'm not really eager to >> go crazy if this is something we have to back-patch. > > Yeah, the idea of replacing sum_grow with a boolean just occurred to me > too. As is, I think the code is making some less-than-portable > assumptions about what will happen if sum_grow overflows; which can > definitely happen, seeing that gistpenalty and its callees intentionally > return infinity in some cases. I'd rather it didn't attempt to add > column penalties together, and I think there's a case to be made that > not doing so is a back-patchable bug fix.
Keep in mind that the worst case outcome is the index quality is worse than it otherwise would have been, so it's not like OMG-PostgreSQ-eats-your-data. > I'll take a shot at improving this some more. Okey dokey. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
