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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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 Content-Type Size
point_ops-0.5-rmh application/octet-stream 26.1 KB
point_ops-0.5-rmh-incremental application/octet-stream 6.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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