Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor)

On 12/02/2011 06:48 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Rebased with head.

Could you comment a little more on what changed?  There were a couple of 
areas Tom commented on:

-General code fixes
-"pull out and apply the changes related to the RANGE_CONTAIN_EMPTY 
flag, and also remove the <> opclass entry"
-Subdiff issues

The third one sounded hard to deal with, so presumably nothing there.  
I'm not sure if your updated rebase addresses either of those first two 
yet or not, or if it was just fixing bitrot from upstream code changes.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support  www.2ndQuadrant.us