From d2b9c02054a85c63d364d6ff73057810424b8f06 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 926487ec039..59a180d0afd 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c +++ b/src/backend/access/brin/brin_inclusion.c @@ -58,10 +58,14 @@ /*- * 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