On 09.08.2012 18:42, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> In this revision of patch I tried to handle conditions more generally using
> variables minLower, maxLower, minUpper, maxUpper, inclusive and
> strictEmpty. However some strategies still contain additional logic.
Thanks, that clarified the code tremendously. The comments I added about
the geometrical interpretations of the operations earlier seem
unnecessary now, so removed those.
> What is our conclusion about saving previous choice for RANGESTRAT_ADJACENT
> strategy?
I think we're going to do what you did in the patch. A more generic
mechanism for holding private state across consistent calls would be
nice, but it's not that ugly the way you wrote it.
I committed the patch now, but left out the support for adjacent for
now. Not because there was necessarily anything wrong with that, but
because I have limited time for reviewing, and the rest of the patch
looks ready for commit now. I reworded the comments quite a lot, you
might want to proofread those to double-check that they're still
correct. I'll take a look at the adjacent-support next, as a separate patch.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com