Re: bt Scankey in another contradictory case - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: bt Scankey in another contradictory case
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzkhDxA2dthK5sPiC1=QueCeTOSytfgBhmFYhkoYVOzcOg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to bt Scankey in another contradictory case  ("bigbro_wq@hotmail.com" <bigbro_wq@hotmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:36 AM b ro <bigbro_wq@hotmail.com> wrote:
>       this is the patch attachment.

We discussed this recently:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80384.1715458896%40sss.pgh.pa.us

I think that we should do this.

It doesn't make a huge difference in practice, because we'll still end
the scan once the leaf level is reached. But it matters more when
array keys are involved, where there might be more than one descent to
the leaf level. Plus we might as well just be thorough about this
stuff.

--
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT: Remove some unnecessary instructions.
Next
From: Sami Imseih
Date:
Subject: Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted