On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> 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. > > Agreed, but we've seen plenty of complaining about bloated gist indexes, > and this might be the cause.
More likely one of several, but sure. >>> I'll take a shot at improving this some more. > >> Okey dokey. > > Attached is a revised version of gistchoose(); I've not yet transposed > the changes into gistRelocateBuildBuffersOnSplit(). It looks a lot > more readable to me now. Objections? Looks good to me. -- 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
