Re: Fix for seg picksplit function

>
> Hmm, the second for loop in gseg_picksplit uses "i < maxoff" whereas the
> other one uses <=. The first is probably correct; if the second is also
> correct it merits a comment on the discrepancy (To be honest, I'd get
> rid of the "-1" in computing maxoff and use < in both places, given that
> offsets are 1-indexed). Also, the second one is using i++ to increment;
> probably should be OffsetNumberNext just to stay consistent with the
> rest of the code.
>
Actually I can't understand the purpose of FirstOffsetNumber
and OffsetNumberNext macros. When I wrote the patch I though about sortItems
as about "clean from all these strange things" array, that's why I didn't
use OffsetNumberNext there. :)
I see only way to save logic of these macros is to use array starting from
FirstOffsetNumber index like in gbt_num_picksplit.

The assignment to *left and *right at the end of the routine seem pretty
> useless (not to mention the comment talking about a routine that doesn't
> exist anywhere).
>
I found, that gtrgm_picksplit in pg_trgm and gtsvector_picksplit in core
still use this assignment, while gist_box_picksplit and gbt_num_picksplit
not. If this assignment is overall useless, than I think we should remove it
from gtrgm_picksplit and gtsvector_picksplit in order to not mislead
developers of gist implementations.

----
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.