Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I will also commit a new regression test script
>> that looks for all the test conditions that I used to locate these
>> problems, in hopes that no new bugs of this ilk will creep in.

> What I did was to make a file in the include/catalog directory called
> template1_check.sql and pg_attribute_check.sql. These are SQL
> statements that check various catalogs and report problems where things
> are missing joins. Perhaps we could put something in there, or move
> these to the regression directory and include them in your stuff.

I saw those but it wasn't clear to me when they would get applied or
whether they were hand-generated or derived from something else. So
I went and made a new regression test, because I think I comprehend
those. If you want to fold the opr_sanity regress test into one of
the sql files in include/catalog, go right ahead. (Or, maybe those
files should be pushed over to regression testing? I dunno.)

> I see "@" means "on" sometimes, and "contained" sometimes, and they use
> "@" for both uses for the point/path combination. Looks like a problem
> that "@" applies to point/path, and "on" and "contained" are both valid.
> However, they seem to mean the same thing. Are on_ppath and
> pt_contained_path doing the same thing. Thomas could help here.

I would expect that on_ppath checks to see if the point is on (touches)
the path, whereas pt_contained_path checks to see if the point is within
the area enclosed by the path. But I haven't looked to see if that's
what the author of the code thought...

regards, tom lane