From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commit fest 2014-12, let's begin! |
Date: | 2014-12-15 13:12:45 |
Message-ID: | 548EDE4D.70703@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/15/2014 08:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> - Point to polygon distance operator
>> I looked at that briefly during the last fest, but was unsure whether it
>> was too entangled with the GiST patches that Heikki was looking at.
> Recalling my memories of this morning, things are rather independent.
Right. I also looked at it briefly, but I wasn't sure if we really want
it. AFAICT, no-one has actually asked for that operator, it was written
only to be an example of an operator that would benefit from the
knn-gist with recheck patch. If there is some other, real, use for the
knn-gist with recheck patch, then I'm OK with that, but otherwise it's
dubious to add an operator just so that it can then be made faster by
another patch. That said, it seems quite harmless, so might as well
commit it.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-15 13:14:26 | Re: GiST kNN search queue (Re: KNN-GiST with recheck) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-12-15 13:08:28 | Re: GiST kNN search queue (Re: KNN-GiST with recheck) |