• Tom Lane's avatar
    Fix confusion in SP-GiST between attribute type and leaf storage type. · ac9099fc
    Tom Lane authored
    According to the documentation, the attType passed to the opclass
    config function (and also relied on by the core code) is the type
    of the heap column or expression being indexed.  But what was
    actually being passed was the type stored for the index column.
    This made no difference for user-defined SP-GiST opclasses,
    because we weren't allowing the STORAGE clause of CREATE OPCLASS
    to be used, so the two types would be the same.  But it's silly
    not to allow that, seeing that the built-in poly_ops opclass
    has a different value for opckeytype than opcintype, and that if you
    want to do lossy storage then the types must really be different.
    (Thus, user-defined opclasses doing lossy storage had to lie about
    what type is in the index.)  Hence, remove the restriction, and make
    sure that we use the input column type not opckeytype where relevant.
    
    For reasons of backwards compatibility with existing user-defined
    opclasses, we can't quite insist that the specified leafType match
    the STORAGE clause; instead just add an amvalidate() warning if
    they don't match.
    
    Also fix some bugs that would only manifest when trying to return
    index entries when attType is different from attLeafType.  It's not
    too surprising that these have not been reported, because the only
    usual reason for such a difference is to store the leaf value
    lossily, rendering index-only scans impossible.
    
    Add a src/test/modules module to exercise cases where attType is
    different from attLeafType and yet index-only scan is supported.
    
    Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3728741.1617381471@sss.pgh.pa.us
    ac9099fc
spgist_private.h 18.6 KB