Thanks for the investigation, Heikki.
> 8 апр. 2021 г., в 01:18, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> написThe correct pattern would be something like this
(withoutthe debugging NOTICE, of course):
>
>> static int
>> gbt_text_sort_build_cmp(Datum a, Datum b, SortSupport ssup)
>> {
>> GBT_VARKEY_R ra = gbt_var_key_readable((GBT_VARKEY *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM(a));
>> GBT_VARKEY_R rb = gbt_var_key_readable((GBT_VARKEY *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM(b));
>> int x = DatumGetInt32(DirectFunctionCall2Coll(bttextcmp,
>> ssup->ssup_collation,
>> PointerGetDatum(a),
>> PointerGetDatum(b)));
>> elog(NOTICE, "cmp: %s vs %s: %d",
>> TextDatumGetCString(ra.lower),
>> TextDatumGetCString(rb.lower),
>> x);
>> return x;
>> }
>
In this pattern I flipped PointerGetDatum(a) to PointerGetDatum(ra.lower), because it seems to me correct. I've
followedrule of thumb: every sort function must extract and user "lower" somehow. Though I suspect numeric a bit. Is it
regularvarlena?
PFA patchset with v6 intact + two fixes of discovered issues.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
