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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download 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


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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