From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor) |
Date: | 2011-12-13 21:11:17 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdusUvNn6MHSWkUwPtrCFyX+N7QCsH0bVWm=mHvQ5kEpSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 06:48 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> Rebased with head.
>>
>
> Could you comment a little more on what changed? There were a couple of
> areas Tom commented on:
>
> -General code fixes
>
Expensibe usage of "Max" macro is fixed in 0.5 version of patch.
-"pull out and apply the changes related to the RANGE_CONTAIN_EMPTY flag,
> and also remove the <> opclass entry"
>
It's already done by Tom.
-Subdiff issues
>
> The third one sounded hard to deal with, so presumably nothing there.
As I wrote before, I believe there is some limitation of current GiST
interface. Most likely we're not going to change GiST interface now and
have to do will solution of tradeoff. I think good way to do it is to
select representive datasets and do some tests which will show which logic
is more reasonable. Actually, I need some help with that, because I don't
have enough of datasets.
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-12-13 21:13:59 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-12-13 21:04:21 | Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor) |