On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pushed with that change and some other mostly-cosmetic tweaking.
Thank you for addressing all those issues, Tom! I tested some
exclusion constraints that are interesting to me, and everything seems
to be working well.
-- Chris
--
Sent via pgs
I wrote:
> I'm kind of inclined to change uuid_parts_distance to just convert
> a given pg_uuid_t to "double" and then apply penalty_num(), as is
> done in gbt_macad_penalty.
Pushed with that change and some other mostly-cosmetic tweaking.
One not too cosmetic fix was that gbt_uuid_union was decl
Chris Bandy writes:
> [ btree_gist_uuid_8.patch ]
Um ... is there a reason why the penalty logic in gbt_uuid_penalty()
is completely unlike that for any other btree_gist module?
As best I can tell from the (admittedly documentation-free) code
elsewhere, the penalty ought to be proportional to th
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What I would suggest is that you forget the union hack and just use
> memcmp in all the comparison functions. It's not likely to be worth
> the trouble to try to get those calls to be safely aligned. The
> only place where you need go to any t
Adam Brusselback writes:
> [ btree_gist_uuid_7.patch ]
I spent awhile looking at this. I have exactly no faith that it won't
crash on alignment-picky hardware, because this declaration:
union pg_uuid_t
{
unsigned char data[UUID_LEN];
uint64 v64[2];
};
is not the same as the exi
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Adam Brusselback
wrote:
> So I apologize in advance if I didn't follow the processes exactly, I was
> going to attempt to review this to move it along, but ran into issues
> applying the patch cleanly to master. I fixed the issues I was having
> applying it, and c
So I apologize in advance if I didn't follow the processes exactly, I was
going to attempt to review this to move it along, but ran into issues
applying the patch cleanly to master. I fixed the issues I was having
applying it, and created a new patch (attached).
Managed to test it out after I got
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
> This is my first patch, so my apologies if anything is missing. I went
> the guidelines and I think I have everything covered. :-)
I am moving this patch to next CF, removing Julien Rouhaud and Teodor
Sigaev as reviewers because they have
Paul A Jungwirth writes:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Paul A Jungwirth writes:
>>> I'm interested in adding GiST support for the UUID column type
>>> . . . . So I'm curious where this change would go?
>> btree_gist, I'd think
> Okay, thank you for your answer! I was wo
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul A Jungwirth writes:
>> I'm interested in adding GiST support for the UUID column type
>> . . . . So I'm curious where this change would go?
> btree_gist, I'd think
Okay, thank you for your answer! I was worried about the effects of
having b
Paul A Jungwirth writes:
> I'm interested in adding GiST support for the UUID column type from
> the uuid-ossp extension. This has been requested and attempted before:
> I've used Postgres for a long time, but I've only dabbled a bit in the
> source code. So I'm curious where this change would go?
11 matches
Mail list logo
