Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov > <aekorot...@gmail.com>wrote: >> Described differences leads to incorrect behaviour of GiST index. >> The question is: what is correct way to fix it? Should on_pb also use FP* >> or consistent method should behave like on_pb?
> Any comments on this? Current behaviour definitely indicates a bug, and I'm > ready to fix it. The only question: is this bug in on_pb or gist? I'm inclined to think the right answer is to make on_pb use the FP* macros, for consistency with other geometric operators. But it's worth asking whether that will actually fix the problem. I've thought for some time that we'd eventually find cases where geo_ops' use of fuzzy comparisons breaks index behavior entirely, because it destroys natural assumptions like the transitive law. So that could eventually lead us to rip out the FP* macros everywhere. In any case, this doesn't seem like something we could back-patch; it'd be a behavioral change in HEAD only. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers