On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached is v12. I think I've brought this as far as I can. > > This is mostly just bug fixes, and some additional refactoring. I've > incorporated Andres' feedback. The only points that I think worth > noting are: > > * The documentation has been significantly expanded to discuss > "containment" further, since it's a significant part of the feature. > This could probably use some polishing and general scrutiny, which is > something that Andrew may consider. I didn't have time to go over it > to the extent that I'd prefer. > > * I altered containment semantics slightly. Now, it is not possible > for a "raw scalar" to contain a single-element array of the same > scalar, while the inverse is still possible (raw scalars still contain > themselves too). This made sense to me, and is consistent with the > behavior of the B-Tree operator class, where a raw scalar is not equal > to a single-element array of the same scalar. Rather, array is greater > than the scalar on the basis of its type alone, as at every other > nesting level. The fact that an array can contain a raw scalar is > explicitly presented as an exception to the general principle that > containment needs to be at the same nesting level. > > I'm not going to go into the details of the bugs fixed, since no one > reported them here, and since they're trivial in nature. For full > details, you can review the log of our publicly accessible feature > branch.
What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in literally? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers