On 02/17/2015 02:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
Ok, thanks for the review! I have committed this, with some cleanup and
more comments added.
ISTM that checks in pairingheap_GISTSearchItem_cmp is incorrect. This
function should perform inverse comparison. Thus, if item a should be
checked first function should return 1. Current behavior doesn't lead to
incorrect query answers, but it could be slower than correct version.
Good catch. Fixed, thanks.
While testing this, I also noticed a bug in the pairing heap code
itself. Fixed that too.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
