Re: Fix "could not find memoization table entry" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Fix "could not find memoization table entry"
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvo=qkcxc-Lx83XOxkC9xNfp1tkCZ6Z5rQL5L1vXv=+a7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Fix "could not find memoization table entry"  (Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 22:00, Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> 于2026年3月25日周三 10:09写道:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 13:31, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was experimenting with a less risky fix by having the datum_image
> > functions force the sign-extended representation of the Datum before
> > hashing or comparing.
> >
> > Attached is a quick PoC of what that would look like. It does fix the
> > reported problem. But it is a hack and doesn't fix the root cause of
> > the issue.
> >
> > Despite the hackiness, I feel this might be better than the
> > whack-a-mole approach of just fixing incorrect usages of the
> > PG_RETURN_* macros as and when we find them.
>
> No objection from me.
> It seems no users have complained about hash_numberic(), and except
> for this reported issue, no internal errors have been reported due to
> hash_numberic().

I cleaned that method up and pushed it.

Thanks for the report.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: docs: warn about post-data-only schema dumps with parallel restore.
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Adjust error message for CREATE STATISTICS to account for expressions