Re: COPY vs. INSERT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject Re: COPY vs. INSERT
Date
Msg-id 20010621190714.5749D1A79@druid.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COPY vs. INSERT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: COPY vs. INSERT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Tom Lane
> darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
> > I followed the instructions on interfacing user defined types as per
> > http://www.ca.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/programmer/xindex.html.
> > In fact I helped write that page so I am pretty sure I got it right.
> > This code worked fine before.  The only change I did was in the C code
> > to use PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1() style functions.  I put in a lot of debug
> > statements and I am positive that the code is doing the right thing.
> 
> Obviously it isn't.  Care to show us the code?

Sure.  ftp://ftp.vex.net/pub/glaccount.

By "right thing" I mean that when it gets a comparison it returns -1, 0 or
+1 depending on the comparison.  The problem appears to be that the functions
just don't get called.  That's why I suspect the SQL that sets up the
indexing instead.

And then there is the other 7.1.2 system that it works on.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: RE: [BUGS] Update is not atomic
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Call for alpha testing: planner statistics revisions