Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 12/02/2011 06:48 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> Rebased with head.
>>
>
> Could you comment a little more on what changed? There were a couple of
> areas Tom commented on:
>
> -General code fixes
>
Expensibe usage of "Max" macro is fixed in 0.5 version of patch.

-"pull out and apply the changes related to the RANGE_CONTAIN_EMPTY flag,
> and also remove the <> opclass entry"
>
It's already done by Tom.

-Subdiff issues
>
> The third one sounded hard to deal with, so presumably nothing there.

As I wrote before, I believe there is some limitation of current GiST
interface. Most likely we're not going to change GiST interface now and
have to do will solution of tradeoff. I think good way to do it is to
select representive datasets and do some tests which will show which logic
is more reasonable. Actually, I need some help with that, because I don't
have enough of datasets.

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.