Re: Fixing r-tree semantics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Fuhr
Subject Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
Date
Msg-id 20050623225347.GA39028@winnie.fuhr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Fixing r-tree semantics  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fixing the existing operators seems relatively straightforward; there will
> need to be some extension to rtstrat.c to represent "NOT this operator"
> as well as "this operator", but that's not hard.  I plan to do this, and
> make the corresponding fixes in contrib/rtree_gist as well.

Excellent.  If the fix is straightforward, is it going to be
backpatched at least to 8.0?  Or is backpatching not worthwhile,
considering that hardly anybody stumbles across the problem or
complains about it?

-- 
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew - Supernews
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing r-tree semantics
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: GiST rtree logic is not right