Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Teodor Sigaev
Subject Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)
Date
Msg-id 4B3B6AE9.1000901@sigaev.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> changes should be made.  It does also need to be updated to CVS HEAD,
> as it no longer applies cleanly.

The reason was a point_ops patch, some OIDs become duplicated. Both attached
patches are synced with current CVS.
>
> I tend to feel that we should probably target this for 8.6 rather than
> 8.5.  We are down to the last CommitFest, and while we don't have a
> nailed-down criterion for what is "too big" for the last CommitFest of
> a given release cycle, this is definitely a big, invasive patch.  This

Is we really have rule to accept only small patches at last CommitFest? May be,
FixFest name is better for it? :)

Actually, it's easy to split patch to several ones:
- contrib/pg_trgm
- contrib/btree_gist
- knngist itself
- planner changes

And knngist depends on rbtree and point_ops patch, in summary 6 dependent
patches. Is it more comfortable?

--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Can we hide data from the superadmin
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Stats for inheritance trees