Re: knngist patch support

From: tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de
To: "Ragi Y(dot) Burhum" <rburhum(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: knngist patch support
Date: 2010-02-11 05:31:20
Message-ID: 20100211053120.GA25763@tomas
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 04:49:59PM -0800, Ragi Y. Burhum wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed this morning that the k nearest neighbor gist patch
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=230 was still being
> considered for inclusion in 9. Sadly, this feature appears to have been
> dropped from 9.

This has been discussed recently on this list. Seems the patch would
need more review to be considered stable. So it's the hard choice of
letting the schedule for 9.0 slip or not letting this patch in.

But some prerequisites will go in, that's the good news.

(BTW: I tried to find this discussion in the Web archives, but had no
luck. It's in my mailbox, though --

e.g.

message-ID 603c8f071002070527j1dada7cdseb42e7cbc71bf71a(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com

part of the long thread "Damage control mode", starting on Jan 8, 2010;
this one mail is from Feb 7 -- but that might be me)

Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLc5YoBcgs9XrR2kYRAoW3AJ94tYWPenLOjH4B4GHD9DCYSSWYOQCeOcoM
RYDhINv+k9YeD23xFHyj9yw=
=K1E0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-02-11 05:46:32 Re: Confusion over Python drivers
Previous Message Andrew McNamara 2010-02-11 05:26:56 Re: Confusion over Python drivers