On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:
>>> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm
>>> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense
>>> to do.
>> I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really
>> an ABI violation: sepgsql_needs_fmgr_hook is supposed to return our notion
>> of bool, but as things stand it's returning _Bool (which is why the
>> compiler is complaining).  Now we might get away with that on most
>> hardware, but on platforms where those are different widths, it's possible
>> to imagine function-return conventions that would make it fail.
>> 0001b seems to only be needed for compilers that aren't smart enough
>> to see that tclass won't be referenced for RELKIND_INDEX, so it's
>> just cosmetic.
> Ok, committed/pushed that way.
> I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached.
> Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll
> have those by end of today and be able to commit the rest tomorrow.

Attached are the regression test updates for partitioned tables.

Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to