Re: [HACKERS] Problem in Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Problem in Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan?
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=0My3PPh6tNSOkkikq0WTc4Fex1mxqbK=Jj05mL0ZLFXw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Problem in Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan?  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Problem in Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan?  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> postgres=# SELECT * FROM inet_tbl WHERE i <> '192.168.1.0/24'::cidr
> ORDER BY i;
>          c          |        i
> --------------------+------------------
>  10.0.0.0/8         | 9.1.2.3/8
>  10.0.0.0/8         | 10.1.2.3/8
>  10.0.0.0/32        | 10.1.2.3/8
>  10.0.0.0/8         | 10.1.2.3/8
>  10.1.0.0/16        | 10.1.2.3/16
>  10.1.2.0/24        | 10.1.2.3/24
>  10.1.2.3/32        | 10.1.2.3
>  10.0.0.0/8         | 11.1.2.3/8
>  192.168.1.0/24     | 192.168.1.226/24
>  192.168.1.0/24     | 192.168.1.255/24
>  192.168.1.0/24     | 192.168.1.0/25
>  192.168.1.0/24     | 192.168.1.255/25
>  192.168.1.0/26     | 192.168.1.226
>  ::ffff:1.2.3.4/128 | ::4.3.2.1/24
>  10:23::f1/128      | 10:23::f1/64
>  10:23::8000/113    | 10:23::ffff
> (16 rows)

Isn't that one row short?  What happened to this one?
10.0.0.0/8         | 10::/8

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size