From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BRIN range operator class |
Date: | 2015-05-07 16:06:11 |
Message-ID: | 20150507160611.GF2523@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> > After looking at 05 again, I don't like the "same as %" business.
> > Creating a whole new class of exceptions is not my thing, particularly
> > not in a regression test whose sole purpose is to look for exceptional
> > (a.k.a. "wrong") cases. I would much rather define the opclasses for
> > those two datatypes using the existing @> operators rather than create
> > && operators for this purpose. We can add a note to the docs, "for
> > historical reasons the brin opclass for datatype box/point uses the <@
> > operator instead of &&", or something like that.
>
> I worked around this by adding point <@ box operator as the overlap
> strategy and removed additional && operators.
That works for me.
I pushed patches 04 and 07, as well as adopting some of the changes to
the regression test in 06. I'm afraid I caused a bit of merge pain for
you -- sorry about that.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-07 17:37:22 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2015-05-07 15:21:13 | Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2) |