Re: [PATCH] Revive line type

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: rui hua <365507506hua(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revive line type
Date: 2013-06-27 01:34:37
Message-ID: 1372296877.5915.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-rrreviewers

On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 12:24 +0800, rui hua wrote:
> Regression tests are all succeed, but several problems have be found while
> ding some simple test. The updated document said that the points used in
> the output are not necessarily the points used on input. I understand that
> as long as they are marked on the same line. But when the input data
> represents a horizontal or vertical line, the output is not exactly the
> same line. It is another line parallel to it.

> postgres=# select line('1,3,2,3');
> line
> -----------------
> [(0,-3),(1,-3)]
> (1 row)

This was just using the wrong sign. Fixed.

> In addition, when a straight line coincides with coordinate axis, output
> appears -0, I do not know whether it is appropriate.

This is a matter of the floating-point operations. I don't think it's
on scope to worry about that. With the above fix, the cases you pointed
out go away anyway.

> Negative value appeared when use <-> to calculate the distance between two
> parallel lines.

Fixed with fabs().

New patch included. Still wondering whether to use a A,B,C-based output
format per Tom's comment.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Revive-line-type.patch text/x-patch 20.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Kupershmidt 2013-06-27 01:36:00 Re: fixing pg_ctl with relative paths
Previous Message Amit Langote 2013-06-27 00:44:15 Re: Computer VARSIZE_ANY(PTR) during debugging

Browse pgsql-rrreviewers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-07-09 00:35:47 [9.4 CF] Free VMs for Reviewers & Testers
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-06-24 17:42:25 Re: A would-be reviewer writes...