"Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Andrew - Supernews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So I think you've mis-analyzed the problem. That's especially true since >> you are claiming that the existing code is already buggy when in fact no >> such bugs have been reported (and clearly intarray has been running with >> toasted array values for years). > > I'm not claiming, I'm asking, because I can't tell. > > And it's not clear _int_gist.c has been running with toasted array values for > years because it's limited to arrays of 100 integers (or perhaps 200 integers, > there's a factor of 2 in the test). That's not enough to trigger toasting > unless there are other large columns in the same table.
Actually I just realized the other large columns in the table would be irrelevant. It's not whether it's toasted in the table that matters, only if it gets compressed by index_form_tuple that does. And it can't since 400 bytes isn't large enough to trigger compression. Unless someone's using multi-column intarray gist indexes with very large arrays which I'm not convinced anyone is. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
