[HACKERS] Aren't lseg_eq and lseg_ne broken?

[Tom Lane]

By chance I just noticed that lseg equality is coded as

Datum
lseg_eq(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
    LSEG       *l1 = PG_GETARG_LSEG_P(0);
    LSEG       *l2 = PG_GETARG_LSEG_P(1);

    PG_RETURN_BOOL(FPeq(l1->p[0].x, l2->p[0].x) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[1].y, l2->p[1].y) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[0].x, l2->p[0].x) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[1].y, l2->p[1].y));
}

Surely this should be

    PG_RETURN_BOOL(FPeq(l1->p[0].x, l2->p[0].x) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[0].y, l2->p[0].y) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[1].x, l2->p[1].x) &&
                   FPeq(l1->p[1].y, l2->p[1].y));

since I don't think I like this result:

regression=# select '[(0, 0), (1, 1)]'::lseg = '[(0, 42), (2, 1)]'::lseg;
 ?column?
----------
 t
(1 row)

lseg_ne has the identical bug.

Checking the CVS archives, I see that this error dates back to the
original Berkeley code, so I'm a bit hesitant to just change it.
Is there any possibility that it really should work this way?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]