On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
> >>> too.
> >>
> >> I'd rather print a
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
>>> too.
>>
>> I'd rather print a loud warning when a hash index is created, but keep
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If so, then how many other bugs are lurking in the hash index code
> > > waiting to bite?
> >
> > Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
> > too.
>
> I'd rather print
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If so, then how many other bugs are lurking in the hash index code
> > waiting to bite?
>
> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
> too.
I'd rather print a loud warning when a hash index is created, but keep
the
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I'm reading this right, this bug means you could do:
> select * from table where field in (1,2,3,4)
> where you should get say 100 rows, and you might not get all 100 rows?
Yes, if you were concurrently inserting into the same table. The given
exam
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've traced through the failure reported here by Markus Kräutner:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-08/msg01132.php
>
> What is happening is that as the UPDATE adds tuples (all with the same
> hash key value) to the table, the hash bucket b
