Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data
Date
Msg-id 1999382.1638396843@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data  (Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> I think losing precision in the gist penalty is generally OK.  Thus,
> it shouldn't be a problem to round a very small value as zero.

Check.

> Probably, we could even tolerate overflow in the gist penalty.

As long as overflow -> infinity, yeah I think so.  Seems like it
was a mistake to insert the overflow-testing functions in this code
at all, and we should simplify it down to plain C addition/subtraction/
multiplication.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Deprecating the term "super-exclusive lock"