From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree |
Date: | 2012-08-19 20:25:13 |
Message-ID: | 1345407913.20987.17.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:10 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I committed the patch now, but left out the support for
> adjacent for now. Not because there was necessarily anything
> wrong with that, but because I have limited time for
> reviewing, and the rest of the patch looks ready for commit
> now. I reworded the comments quite a lot, you might want to
> proofread those to double-check that they're still correct.
> I'll take a look at the adjacent-support next, as a separate
> patch.
>
>
> Thanks! There is a separate patch for adjacent. I've reworked adjacent
> check in order to make it more clear.
I am taking a look at this patch now. A few quick comments:
* It looks like bounds_adjacent modifies it's by-reference arguments,
which is a little worrying to me. The lower/upper labels are flipped
back, but the inclusivities are not. Maybe just pass by value instead?
* Bounds_adjacent is sensitive to the argument order. Can't it just take
bound1 and bound2?
* I tried some larger tests and they seemed to work. I haven't reviewed
the spgist code changes in detail though.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2012-08-19 20:26:16 | Unexpected plperl difference between 8.4 and 9.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-19 16:06:30 | Rules and WITH and LATERAL |