Re: CODE ANALYSIS FOR (an apparent error in answer from "##" (closest proximity)operator)

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Gautam H Thaker <gthaker(at)atl(dot)lmco(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CODE ANALYSIS FOR (an apparent error in answer from "##" (closest proximity)operator)
Date: 1998-05-01 01:35:36
Message-ID: 354926E8.E8B85032@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> OK, I will try to work on this and provide you tested code.
> (Since this is my first attempt to code in Postgres
> it might take me a while though I have hacked for many
> years overall.)

No problem.

> Lines are more useful to me than lsegs. Is it easy
> enough to add these input/output routines so that I can
> continue to move forward prior to V6.4?

Yes. I'm starting to do that now, and we can coordinate patches. We may
as well copy the hackers list on at least our planning e-mails...

- Tom

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-05-01 01:46:54 Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous Message Tom Ivar Helbekkmo 1998-04-30 21:01:57 Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC