On 12/6/21 22:35, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
Hello,
I don't see any changes in the documentation.[1]
Should bool appear in the looong list of supported operator classes?
You're right, I forgot to update the list of data types in the docs.
Fixed, thanks for the report.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
Hello,
I don't see any changes in the documentation.[1]
Should bool appear in the looong list of supported operator classes?
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/btree-gist.html
--
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 11/7/21 20:53, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
On 11/7/21 17:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
Pushed, after adding some simple EXPLAIN to the regression test.
skink is reporting that this has some valgrind issues [1].
I suspect sloppy conversion between bool and Datum, but
didn't go loo
Hi,
On 11/7/21 17:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
Pushed, after adding some simple EXPLAIN to the regression test.
skink is reporting that this has some valgrind issues [1].
I suspect sloppy conversion between bool and Datum, but
didn't go looking.
It's actually a bit worse than
Tomas Vondra writes:
> Pushed, after adding some simple EXPLAIN to the regression test.
skink is reporting that this has some valgrind issues [1].
I suspect sloppy conversion between bool and Datum, but
didn't go looking.
==1805451== VALGRINDERROR-BEGIN
==1805451== Uninitialised byte(s) found du
On 11/3/21 16:18, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
I looked at this patch today - it's pretty simple and in pretty good
shape, I can't think of anything that'd need fixing. Perhaps the test
might also do EXPLAIN like for other types, to verify the new index is
actually used. But that's minor enough to ha
Hi,
I looked at this patch today - it's pretty simple and in pretty good
shape, I can't think of anything that'd need fixing. Perhaps the test
might also do EXPLAIN like for other types, to verify the new index is
actually used. But that's minor enough to handle during commit.
I've marked this a
> 8 июня 2021 г., в 19:53, Emre Hasegeli написал(а):
>
>> But patch that you propose does not support sorting build added in PG14.
>
> It looks like the change to btree_gist is not committed yet. I'll
> rebase my patch once it's committed.
Changes to GiST are committed. There will be no need
> But patch that you propose does not support sorting build added in PG14.
It looks like the change to btree_gist is not committed yet. I'll
rebase my patch once it's committed.
It was a long thread. I couldn't read all of it. Though, the last
patches felt to me like a part of what's already b
Hi!
> 8 июня 2021 г., в 13:48, Emre Hasegeli написал(а):
>
> It could be useful to use bool in exclusion constraints, but it's
> currently not nicely supported. The attached patch adds support for
> bool to the btree_gist extension, so we can do this.
>
> I am adding this to the commitfest 202
It could be useful to use bool in exclusion constraints, but it's
currently not nicely supported. The attached patch adds support for
bool to the btree_gist extension, so we can do this.
I am adding this to the commitfest 2021-07.
0001-btree_gist-Support-bool.patch
Description: Binary data
11 matches
Mail list logo
