Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Pavel Borisov writes: > I've made another check of the final state and suppose it is ready to be > pushed. Sounds good, pushed. regards, tom lane

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, passed I've made another check of the final state and suppose it is

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> > The wording seems no problem to me. I looked into a patch and changes >> also seem sensible but I can not apply this patch because of really many >> rejects. Which commit should I use to apply it onto? > > Sorry, the rejects were due to my git configuration. I will apply and make the final

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> > >> undocumented. Maybe instead of removing, change the text to be > >> "Deprecated, use the equivalent XXX operator instead." Or we could > >> add a footnote similar to what was there for a previous renaming: > > > The problem that this new <<| is equivalent to <^ only for points (To > >

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Pavel Borisov writes: >> undocumented. Maybe instead of removing, change the text to be >> "Deprecated, use the equivalent XXX operator instead." Or we could >> add a footnote similar to what was there for a previous renaming: > The problem that this new <<| is equivalent to <^ only for points

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> > 1. The patch removes <^ and >^ from func.sgml, which is fine, but shouldn't there be an addition for the new operators? (I think > I fully agree and added "point" as a possible input type for <<| and |>> in manual. PFA v5 > undocumented. Maybe instead of removing, change the text to be >

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Pavel Borisov writes: > [ v4-0001-Deprecate-and-replace-and-operators-for-points.patch ] I made a cursory pass over this, and two things stood out to me: 1. The patch removes <^ and >^ from func.sgml, which is fine, but shouldn't there be an addition for the new operators? (I think probably

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> > > I have only one thing to note: as this patch doesn't disable <^ and >^ > operator for boxes the existing state of documentation seem consistent to > me: > > > > select '((0,0),(1,1))'::box <<| '((0,1),(1,2))'::box; > > -- > > f > > > > select '((0,0),(1,1))'::box <^

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> I've rebased and tested your proposed patch. It seems fine and sensible to me. Thanks > I have only one thing to note: as this patch doesn't disable <^ and >^ > operator for boxes the existing state of documentation seem consistent to me: > > select '((0,0),(1,1))'::box <<|

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Emre, I've rebased and tested your proposed patch. It seems fine and sensible to me. I have only one thing to note: as this patch doesn't disable <^ and >^ operator for boxes the existing state of documentation seem consistent to me: select '((0,0),(1,1))'::box <<| '((0,1),(1,2))'::box;

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Emre, could you please again rebase your patch on top of 2f70fdb0644c32c4154236c2b5c241bec92eac5e ? It is not applied anymore. > -- Best regards, Pavel Borisov Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> The subject is about the documentation, but the post reveals > inconsistencies of the operators. Tom Lane fixed the documentation on > the back branches. The new patch is to fix the operators on the > master only. > Nice catch, thanks! I agree that different operators should not have the same

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> Emre, the CF bot complains that this does not apply anymore, so please > provide a rebase. By the way, I am a bit confused to see a patch > that adds new operators on a thread whose subject is about > documentation. Rebased version is attached. The subject is about the documentation, but the

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:00:45PM +0100, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > I prepared a patch to add <<| and |>> operators for points to > deprecate the previous ones. Emre, the CF bot complains that this does not apply anymore, so please provide a rebase. By the way, I am a bit confused to see a patch

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> While revising the docs for the geometric operators, I came across > these entries: > > <^ Is below (allows touching)? circle '((0,0),1)' <^ circle > '((0,5),1)' > >^ Is above (allows touching)? circle '((0,5),1)' >^ circle > >'((0,0),1)' > > These have got more than a few

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

Emre Hasegeli writes: >> Perhaps it's too late in the v13 cycle to actually do anything >> about this code-wise, but what should I do documentation-wise? >> I'm certainly not eager to document that these operators behave >> inconsistently depending on which type you're talking about. > I don't

Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

> Perhaps it's too late in the v13 cycle to actually do anything > about this code-wise, but what should I do documentation-wise? > I'm certainly not eager to document that these operators behave > inconsistently depending on which type you're talking about. I don't think we need to worry too

Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators

While revising the docs for the geometric operators, I came across these entries: <^ Is below (allows touching)? circle '((0,0),1)' <^ circle '((0,5),1)' >^ Is above (allows touching)? circle '((0,5),1)' >^ circle '((0,0),1)' These have got more than a few problems: 1. There