Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table
Date
Msg-id 24270.1464184933@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> Given what a Bloom filter is/does, I'm having a hard time seeing how it
> makes much sense to support the boolean type.

> My biggest gripe with it at the moment is that the signature size should be
> expressed in bits, and then internally rounded up to a multiple of 16,
> rather than having it be expressed in 'uint16'.

> If that were done it would be easier to fix the documentation to be more
> understandable.

+1 ... that sort of definition seems much more future-proof, too.
IMO it's not too late to change this.  (We probably don't want to change
the on-disk representation of the reloptions, but we could convert from
bits to words in bloptions().)
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump -j against standbys
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel pg_dump's error reporting doesn't work worth squat