Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops
От | Tels |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 627e529674a10ff24f93899a57c3a88f.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, On Thu, March 9, 2017 9:04 am, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com> wrote: > >> > I think this patch is already in a good shape. >> >> I am sorry for introducing this bug. This fix looks good to me as well. > > > I checked this patch too. And it seems good to me as well. > Should we mark it as "ready for committer"? I can't comment on the code, but the grammar on the comments caught my eye: > +/* Can any range from range_box does not extend higher than this argument? */ > >+static bool >+overLower2D(RangeBox *range_box, Range *query) >+{ >+ return FPle(range_box->left.low, query->high) && >+ FPle(range_box->right.low, query->high); >+} The sentence sounds quite garbled in English. I'm not entirely sure what it should be, but given the comment below "/* Can any range from range_box to be higher than this argument? */" maybe something like: /* Does any range from range_box extend to the right side of the query? */ If used, an analog wording should be used for overHigher2D's comment like: /* Does any range from range_box extend to the left side of the query? */ Also: /* Can any range from range_box to be higher than this argument? */ should be: /* Can any range from range_box be higher than this argument? */ Another question: Does it make sense to add the "minimal bad example for the '&<' case" as test case, too? After all, it should pass the test after the patch. Bets regards, Tels
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: