Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: point_ops for GiST

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: point_ops for GiST
Date: 2009-12-31 16:53:12
Message-ID: 603c8f070912310853g1d27d2c9hdb753bc116111961@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>:
> Sync with current CVS

I have reviewed this patch and it looks good to me.  The only
substantive question I have is why gist_point_consistent() uses a
different coding pattern for the box case than it does for the polygon
and circle cases?  It's not obvious to me on the face of it why these
aren't consistent.

Beyond that, I have a variety of minor whitespace and commenting
suggestions, so I am attaching an updated version of the patch as well
as an incremental diff between your version and mine, for your
consideration.  The changes are: (1) comment reuse of gist_box
functions for point_ops, (2) format point ops function analogously to
existing sections in same file, (3) uncuddle opening braces, (4)
adjust indentation and spacing in a few places, (5) rename
StrategyNumberOffsetRange to GeoStrategyNumberOffset, and (6) use a
plain block instead of do {} while (0) - the latter construct is
really only needed in certain types of macros.

...Robert

Attachment: point_ops-0.5-rmh-incremental
Description: application/octet-stream (6.8 KB)
Attachment: point_ops-0.5-rmh
Description: application/octet-stream (26.1 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-31 17:06:24
Subject: Re: Re-enabling SET ROLE in security definer functions
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2009-12-31 16:46:22
Subject: Re: uintptr_t for Datum

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group