On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:10 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I committed the patch now, but left out the support for > adjacent for now. Not because there was necessarily anything > wrong with that, but because I have limited time for > reviewing, and the rest of the patch looks ready for commit > now. I reworded the comments quite a lot, you might want to > proofread those to double-check that they're still correct. > I'll take a look at the adjacent-support next, as a separate > patch. > > > Thanks! There is a separate patch for adjacent. I've reworked adjacent > check in order to make it more clear.
I am taking a look at this patch now. A few quick comments: * It looks like bounds_adjacent modifies it's by-reference arguments, which is a little worrying to me. The lower/upper labels are flipped back, but the inclusivities are not. Maybe just pass by value instead? * Bounds_adjacent is sensitive to the argument order. Can't it just take bound1 and bound2? * I tried some larger tests and they seemed to work. I haven't reviewed the spgist code changes in detail though. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers