On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 17:20, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > bms_member_index seems working differently than maybe expected. > > bms_member_index((2, 4), 0) => 0, (I think) should be -1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 1) => 0, should be -1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 2) => 0, should be 0 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 3) => 1, should be -1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 4) => 1, should be 1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 5) => 2, should be -1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 6) => 2, should be -1 > ... > bms_member_index((2, 4), 63) => 2, should be -1 > bms_member_index((2, 4), 64) => -1, correct > > It works correctly only when x is a member - the way the function > is maybe actually used in this patch -, or needs to change the > specifiction (or the comment) of the function.
Looks like: + if (wordnum >= a->nwords) + return -1; should be: + if (wordnum >= a->nwords || + (a->word[wordnum] & ((bitmapword) 1 << bitnum)) == 0) + return -1; -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
