On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looking at the revised version of initGISTstate, I am thinking that
> I missed a step in updating the main indexing code for the new
> pg_opclass definition. It seems to me that if opckeytype is not 0,
> that datatype ought to be used to declare the index column type from
> the beginning. Then initGISTstate wouldn't need to go through all
> these pushups to develop a correct tuple descriptor for the index.
>
> Any objections?
>
Tom,
if you look into previous patch we sent (patch_72_systbl.gz)
you could find patch for ./src/backend/catalog/index.c which
is exact implementation of what 'seems to you' :-)
Teodor thought you don't like this idea and he moved functionality to
initGISTstate. But he'd prefer his original implementation.
So, if you have no objection, we could prepare NEW patch to
current CVS with old implementation.
> regards, tom lane
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
