| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | William White <bwhite(at)frognet(dot)net>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing r-tree semantics |
| Date: | 2005-06-23 22:53:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20050623225347.GA39028@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fixing the existing operators seems relatively straightforward; there will
> need to be some extension to rtstrat.c to represent "NOT this operator"
> as well as "this operator", but that's not hard. I plan to do this, and
> make the corresponding fixes in contrib/rtree_gist as well.
Excellent. If the fix is straightforward, is it going to be
backpatched at least to 8.0? Or is backpatching not worthwhile,
considering that hardly anybody stumbles across the problem or
complains about it?
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-06-23 22:54:29 | Re: GiST rtree logic is not right |
| Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-06-23 22:53:05 | Re: Fixing r-tree semantics |