Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of
> >> any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1.
> >> Do we need to do something about that?
> >
> >
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of
>> any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1.
>> Do we need to do something about that?
>
> Like bumping catversion?
Sure.
Robert Haas writes:
> I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of
> any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1.
> Do we need to do something about that?
Like bumping catversion?
I would probably complain about that, except you already did it p
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Doh! I forgot one important piece of this algorithm - it is necessary
> to initialise the result to something non-zero at the start so that
> adding leading nulls to an array changes the final result.
Looks reasonable.
I believe, however, th
On 19 May 2011 15:33, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>> The algorithm for this was discussed in the original thread
>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg02050.php)
>> but I don't that think a satisfactory conclusion was really r
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> The algorithm for this was discussed in the original thread
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg02050.php)
> but I don't that think a satisfactory conclusion was really reached.
> In particular, it is way too easy to com
