Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index

>
> But let's change macro a bit. When I see
> SGLT_SET_OFFSET(leafTuple->nextOffset, InvalidOffsetNumber);
> I expect that leafTuple->nextOffset is function argument by value and will
> not be changed.
> For example see ItemPointerSetOffsetNumber() - it's not exposing ip_posid.
>
> Also, I'd propose instead of
> >*(leafChainDatums + i * natts) and leafChainIsnulls + i * natts
> using something like
> >int some_index = i * natts;
> >leafChainDatumsp[some_index] and &leafChainIsnulls[some_index]
> But, probably, it's a matter of taste...
>
> Also I'm not sure would it be helpful to use instead of
> >isnull[0] and leafDatum[0]
> more complex
> >#define SpgKeyIndex 0
> >isnull[SpgKeyIndex] and leafDatum[SpgKeyIndex]
> There is so many [0] in the patch...
>
I agree with all of your proposals and integrated them into v9.
Thank you very much!

-- 
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>