Oleg Bartunov escribió: > Yes, it's a bug and it needs to be applied ! Oleg,
This patch has been waiting a long time for some review and commit. Since it fixes existing bugs, it should be backpatched; or at least some people believe it needs to be. Please see downthread -- there is some commentary from Noah ([1] and others) about the patch itself. As far I understand, some changes are still needed, and I don't know if the last version submitted is the version that should be backpatched. But *something* needs to be done about this patch. Since you and Teodor are the guys mostly in charge of GiST, could you please see about finalizing and committing it? Thanks. [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121018191828.gb10...@tornado.leadboat.com > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov > >>> <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I think we definitely should apply this patch before 9.2 release, > >>>> because it > >>>> is a bug fix. Otherwise people will continue produce incorrect GiST > >>>> indexes > >>>> with in-core geometrical opclasses until 9.3. Patch is very simple and > >>>> only > >>>> changes few lines of code. > >>>> > >>>> Any thoughts? > >> > >>> Do we need to apply this patch to 9.2? > >> > >> It's been like that all along, no? > > > > Yeah, but it seems an awful lot like a bug. In fact... it's hard to > > imagine how it could be any more of a bug than this. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
