Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes: > Le 12 juin 09 à 21:49, Tom Lane a écrit : >> It seems to me it could still do >> with a lot more detail to specify what API the functions are really >> expected to implement.
> I'm sorry I'm not following... I guess you're talking about a better > high-level view of things? Like describing GiST itself, the way it's > done in the following link, but reduced in one or two paragraphs? > http://gist.cs.berkeley.edu/gist1.html No, we already have that level of detail (some of it word for word in fact); and it's not all that important for opclass authors to know how GIST works anyway. What's bothering me is the fuzziness of the API specifications for the support functions. It's not real clear for example what you have to do to have an index storage type different from the column datatype, and even less clear which type the same() function is comparing. Having some skeletons that execute magic bits of undocumented code is not a substitute for a specification. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
