On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is v12. I think I've brought this as far as I can.
>
> This is mostly just bug fixes, and some additional refactoring. I've
> incorporated Andres' feedback. The only points that I think worth
> noting are:
>
> * The documentation has been significantly expanded to discuss
> "containment" further, since it's a significant part of the feature.
> This could probably use some polishing and general scrutiny, which is
> something that Andrew may consider. I didn't have time to go over it
> to the extent that I'd prefer.
>
> * I altered containment semantics slightly. Now, it is not possible
> for a "raw scalar" to contain a single-element array of the same
> scalar, while the inverse is still possible (raw scalars still contain
> themselves too). This made sense to me, and is consistent with the
> behavior of the B-Tree operator class, where a raw scalar is not equal
> to a single-element array of the same scalar. Rather, array is greater
> than the scalar on the basis of its type alone, as at every other
> nesting level. The fact that an array can contain a raw scalar is
> explicitly presented as an exception to the general principle that
> containment needs to be at the same nesting level.
>
> I'm not going to go into the details of the bugs fixed, since no one
> reported them here, and since they're trivial in nature. For full
> details, you can review the log of our publicly accessible feature
> branch.
What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in
literally?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +