Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Oleg Bartunov
Subject Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ?
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.44.0207231924020.9798-200000@ra.sai.msu.su
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > We are about to submit brand bew contrib/ltree module
> > (first draft of documetation is available from
> > http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/ltree/)
> > and I have a question what version to submit - 7.2 or 7.3 ?
>
> 7.3.  There are unlikely to be any more 7.2 releases, and in any
> case they would be bugfixes only, no new features.

OK. We've got documentation written and the module could be downloaded
from http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/ltree/ltree.tar.gz
It's works with current CVS and there is patch.72 within the archive,
so people could use it with 7.2 release.

I've attached text version of documentation, it's about 16Kb, sorry for that.
HTML version is available from http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/gist/ltree/

Also, we prepared test data based on DMOZ catalog (about 300,000 nodes)
and encourage people to play with queries.

One known issue: It'll not works with 64-bit OS. We'll certainly fix this
but will appreciate if somebody with access to 64-bit machine could help us.
It's known problem with byte-alignment.


>
>             regards, tom lane
>
Regards,    Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements
Next
From: Mike Mascari
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements