Re: range_agg - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Paul A Jungwirth
Subject Re: range_agg
Date
Msg-id CA+renyUPu5yVzw_2mQ=+nNxwRVP_fnjMYaN591Fdw5kMKHQV2Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: range_agg  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: range_agg  (Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:10 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I didn't know the answer then and I
> still don't know the answer now.

Okay, thanks Alvaro! I'll see if I can figure it out myself. I assume
it is actually possible, right? I've seen references to on-disk format
vs in-memory format before, but I've never encountered anything in the
code supporting a difference.

> Anyway, I rebased this to verify that the code hasn't broken, and it
> hasn't -- the tests still pass.  There was a minor conflict in
> pg_operator.dat which I fixed.

Thanks, and thanks for your v17 also. Here is a patch building on that
and adding support for anycompatiblemultirange.

Regards,
Paul

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Corruption during WAL replay
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm forpartition-wise join