Re: Sort support for macaddr8 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Sort support for macaddr8
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznUEpFkfDSye-RVXrW_K+hNSpYntSk8spF1ZxENWqnR3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sort support for macaddr8  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:03 PM Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> wrote:
> Am I going cross-eyed, or would the memset be serving more of a purpose
> if it were in the SIZEOF_DATUM != 8 branch?

No, it wouldn't -- that's the correct place for it with the macaddr
type. However, it isn't actually necessary to memset() at the
equivalent point for macaddr8, since we cannot "run out of bytes from
the authoritative representation" that go in the Datum/abbreviated
key. I suppose that the memset() should simply be removed, since it is
superfluous here.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Dubé
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] ruleutils: Fix subqueries with shadowed aliases
Next
From: Jared Rulison
Date:
Subject: Use of multi-column gin index