From b69df6fdbb9b0b903c595324cfef1e9363a60e7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alvaro Herrera Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:00:25 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Fix thinko in comment The listed numbers disagreed with the ones being used in the symbols; but instead of just fixing the numbers in the comment, use the symbolic name instead, which seems clearer. This has been wrong all along, so apply back to 9.5 where BRIN was introduced. Reported-by: Tomas Vondra Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5ff514f2-8b1e-6366-b11c-8e2ed442562d@2ndquadrant.com --- src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c b/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c index 9c0a058ccb0..24c9a1f8f19 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c +++ b/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c @@ -59,10 +59,14 @@ /*- * The values stored in the bv_values arrays correspond to: * - * 0 - the union of the values in the block range - * 1 - whether an empty value is present in any tuple in the block range - * 2 - whether the values in the block range cannot be merged (e.g. an IPv6 - * address amidst IPv4 addresses). + * INCLUSION_UNION + * the union of the values in the block range + * INCLUSION_UNMERGEABLE + * whether the values in the block range cannot be merged + * (e.g. an IPv6 address amidst IPv4 addresses) + * INCLUSION_CONTAINS_EMPTY + * whether an empty value is present in any tuple + * in the block range */ #define INCLUSION_UNION 0 #define INCLUSION_UNMERGEABLE 1