Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>> I don't see anyone very excited about r-tree these days; have you
>> noticed that no one has stepped up to repair the known semantic errors?
>> I wouldn't spend any time on it in the prover.
> That sort of thing is always self-fulfilling. If rtrees were fast,
> logged and rad, then more people would use them :)
The prophecy I'd like to see become self-fulfilling is that we get GIST
to production quality and then r-trees wither on the vine because
there's no reason to use them. I'm not aware of any reason to prefer
r-tree to an equivalent GIST opclass...
regards, tom lane
