"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

  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to