Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
... At internal pages, gist_point_consistent() should implement
point @ box with an algorithm near-equivalent to box_overlap(). (As an
optional deviation, it may use exact
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 01:53:19AM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I was thrown off by your use of a different, albeit
mathematically
equivalent, algorithm from the one used in box_overlap(). Please don't do
that;
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:01:17PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:05:30PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:17:28AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:58:40PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
wrote:
There's also the
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:05:30PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
--- 1339,1356
*recheck = false;
break;
case BoxStrategyNumberGroup:
!
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:05:30PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
--- 1339,1356
*recheck = false;
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
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:18:48AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:17:28AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:58:40PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:58:40PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types instead of trying to hack
indexes to work
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:04:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types instead
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types instead of trying to hack
indexes to work around them.
+1 for that approach, but only if I don't have to do
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types instead of trying to hack
indexes to work around them.
+1 for that
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's also the big-picture question of whether we should just get rid
of fuzzy comparisons in the geometric types
I need someone to review this patch for 9.3. We have already missed
fixing this for 9.2.
---
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:53:43PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I need someone to review this patch for 9.3. We have already missed
fixing this for 9.2.
So put it in the next commitfest.
FWIW, I looked at this last week, and concluded I didn't have enough
confidence in it to push it into 9.2 at the last minute.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 07:43:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I need someone to review this patch for 9.3. We have already missed
fixing this for 9.2.
So put it in the next commitfest.
FWIW, I looked at this last week, and concluded I didn't have
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 07:43:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I need someone to review this patch for 9.3. We have already missed
fixing this for 9.2.
So put it in the next commitfest.
Done. I have linked to your comment below too.
Yes, it's a bug and it needs to be applied !
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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com
wrote:
Attached patch fixes GiST behaviour without altering operators behaviour.
I think we definitely should apply this patch before 9.2
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
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
Oleg Bartunov obartu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, it's a bug and it needs to be applied !
Well, it needs to be *reviewed* first, and nobody's done that ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Oleg Bartunov obartu...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, it's a bug and it needs to be applied !
Well, it needs to be *reviewed* first, and nobody's done that ...
I've discussed it with Teodor privately and he has verified by
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Attached patch fixes GiST behaviour without altering operators behaviour.
I think we definitely should apply this patch before 9.2 release, because
it is a bug fix. Otherwise people will continue produce incorrect
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
I believe that attached version of patch can be backpatched. It fixes this
problem without altering of index building procedure. It just makes checks
in internal pages softener enough to compensate effect of
I believe that attached version of patch can be backpatched. It fixes this
problem without altering of index building procedure. It just makes checks
in internal pages softener enough to compensate effect of gist_box_same
implementation.
--
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
***
Attached patch fixes GiST behaviour without altering operators behaviour.
--
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
*** a/src/backend/access/gist/gistproc.c
--- b/src/backend/access/gist/gistproc.c
***
*** 836,842 gist_box_picksplit(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
}
/*
! * Equality
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Described differences leads to incorrect behaviour of GiST index.
The question is: what is correct way to fix it? Should on_pb also use FP*
or consistent method should behave like on_pb?
Any comments on this?
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Described differences leads to incorrect behaviour of GiST index.
The question is: what is correct way to fix it? Should on_pb also use FP*
or consistent method
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Described differences leads to incorrect behaviour of GiST index.
The question is: what is
31 matches
Mail list logo
