On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 at 20:30, Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > Hi Andrey, > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 9:55 AM Andrey Borodin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Aug 2026, at 12:03, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think that you forgot to attach the patch with the actual fix? > > > > Oops. Sorry. > > Peter, thank you for catching this. Andrey, thank you for the patch. > Yes, multirange_gist_consistent() re-uses consistent functions from > range opclass. And range_gist_consistent_leaf_multirange() generate > false negatives when applied to union range of multirange. I've > rechecked, and it appears to be the only case among the predicates. > > Regarding this contained-by case, I think we can build more precise > test function. If we have multiranges q and k, and union() produces > union range from multirange. > > q @> r doesn't mean q @> union(r) > But if q @> r then union(q) @> union(r) >
Hi! I reviewed v3. multirange_contains_union_range function comment contains typo at 'give' 'Every multiranges contains an infinite number of empty multiranges, even an empty one.' also contain typos Return statement can be : return range_cmp_bounds(rangetyp, &lower1, &lower2) <= 0 && range_cmp_bounds(rangetyp, &upper1, &upper2) >= 0; But I don't insist. Better for my taste. -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
