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

Re: knngist patch support

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, "Ragi Y(dot) Burhum" <rburhum(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: knngist patch support
Date: 2010-02-11 16:37:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.1002111924440.16860@sn.sai.msu.ru (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 
>> My own feeling about it is that I much preferred the original proposal
>> of a contrib module with little or no change to core code.  I don't want
>> to be changing core code for this at this late hour.  If it were only
>> touching GIST I'd be willing to rely on your and Teodor's expertise in
>> that module, but it's not.  It whacks around the planner, it makes
>> questionable changes in the operator class structure, and the last

We splitted patch to make review easy, probably by several reviewers,
since we touched several subsystems.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4B4CCB9F.8080708@sigaev.ru

Patch for planner is 5600 bytes long, not so big.


>
> aha, we originally submit contrib module, which didn't touch anything you 
> mentioned, we improve stuff to follow discussion and now we are out of luck 
> %(
>
>> version I saw hadn't any documentation whatever.  It's not committable
>> on documentation grounds alone, even if everybody was satisfied about
>> the code.
>
> well, there is enough documentation to review patch. In my understanding this 
> was always enough to submit code. User's documentation is depend on 
> discussion and review and can be added later
> before releasing beta.
>
>> 
>> How do you feel about going back to the original contrib module for now
>> and resubmitting the builtin version for 9.1?
>
> Hmm, one good thing is that rbtree seems ok for submisson. We need to discuss
> this, if it's good for PostGIS community. I'd not complain about this 
> decision
> if it touch my interests only, I could live with closed-source patch.

Contrib module is a big step backward and will produce compatibility problem,
since we'll have to use awkward operation ><, which works different 
with/without index. Also, it'd be very difficult to add support to other
contrib modules (btree_gist, pg_trgm).

Links:
Heikki complaint - http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4B0B8C30.2080400@enterprisedb.com
Simon - http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1259115190.27757.11194.camel@ebony


 	Regards,
 		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-02-11 16:38:19
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Previous:From: Andrew ChernowDate: 2010-02-11 16:34:52
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

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