On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 12:47 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Right version of patch is attached.
>
* In bounds_adjacent, there's no reason to flip the labels back.
* Comment should indicate more explicitly that bounds_adjacent is
sensitive to the argument order.
* In bounds_adjacent, it appears that "bound1" corresponds to "B" in the
comment above, and "bound2" corresponds to "A" in the comment above. I
would have guessed from reading the comment that bound1 corresponded to
A. We should just use consistent names between the comment and the code
(e.g. boundA and boundB).
* I could be getting confused, but I think that line 645 of
rangetypes_spgist.c should be inverted (!bounds_adjacent(...)).
* I think needPrevious should have an explanatory comment somewhere. It
looks like you are using it to store some state as you descend the tree,
but it doesn't look like it's used to reconstruct the value (because we
already have the value anyway). Since it's being used for a purpose
other than what's intended, that should be explained.
Regards,Jeff Davis
