On 09.08.2012 18:42, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
In this revision of patch I tried to handle conditions more generally using variables minLower, maxLower, minUpper, maxUpper, inclusive and strictEmpty. However some strategies still contain additional logic.
Thanks, that clarified the code tremendously. The comments I added about the geometrical interpretations of the operations earlier seem unnecessary now, so removed those.
What is our conclusion about saving previous choice for RANGESTRAT_ADJACENT strategy?
I think we're going to do what you did in the patch. A more generic mechanism for holding private state across consistent calls would be nice, but it's not that ugly the way you wrote it.
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.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
