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

Re: Fixing r-tree semantics

From: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: William White <bwhite(at)frognet(dot)net>,Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
Date: 2005-06-23 22:53:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fixing the existing operators seems relatively straightforward; there will
> need to be some extension to rtstrat.c to represent "NOT this operator"
> as well as "this operator", but that's not hard.  I plan to do this, and
> make the corresponding fixes in contrib/rtree_gist as well.

Excellent.  If the fix is straightforward, is it going to be
backpatched at least to 8.0?  Or is backpatching not worthwhile,
considering that hardly anybody stumbles across the problem or
complains about it?

Michael Fuhr

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-06-23 22:54:29
Subject: Re: GiST rtree logic is not right
Previous:From: Andrew - SupernewsDate: 2005-06-23 22:53:05
Subject: Re: Fixing r-tree semantics

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group