On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think this may be premature in view of bug #14210. Even if we > don't reinstate use of this function to fix that, I'm not really > convinced we want to get rid of it; it seems likely to me that > we might want it again.
Advertising
Oh, yes; that involves the same commit I mentioned. I'll look into #14210. FWIW, I think that that bug tells us a lot about hash index usage in the field. It took many months for someone to complain about what ought to have been a really obvious bug. Clearly, hardly anybody is using hash indexes. I broke hash index tuplesort builds in a similar way at one point, too. The slightest bit of regression test coverage would have caught either bug, I believe. I think that some minimal regression tests should be added, because evidently they are needed. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
