Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Assume that conforms to the C standard.
Previously we checked "for that conforms to C99" using
autoconf's AC_HEADER_STDBOOL macro. We've required C99 since PostgreSQL
12, so the test was redundant, and under C23 it was broken: autoconf
2.69's implementation doesn't understand C23's new empty he
Remove the wrong assertion from match_orclause_to_indexcol()
Obviously, the constant could be zero. Also, add the relevant check to
regression tests.
Reported-by: Richard Guo
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4-siKJdtWhcbqk4Y-xG12do2Ckm1qw672GNsSnDqL9FQg%40mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
mast
Doc: Clarify the `inactive_since` field description.
Updated to specify that it represents the exact time a slot became
inactive, rather than the period of inactivity.
Reported-by: Peter Smith
Author: Bruce Momjian, Nisha Moond
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Peter Smith
Backpatch-through: 17
Discussio
Doc: Clarify the `inactive_since` field description.
Updated to specify that it represents the exact time a slot became
inactive, rather than the period of inactivity.
Reported-by: Peter Smith
Author: Bruce Momjian, Nisha Moond
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Peter Smith
Backpatch-through: 17
Discussio
Simplify some SPI tests of PL/Python
These tests relied on both next() and __next__(), but only the former is
needed since Python 2 support has been removed, so let's simplify a bit
the tests.
Author: Erik Wienhold
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/173209043143.2092749.13692266486972491...@wrigley
doc: Fix example with __next__() in PL/Python function
Per PEP 3114, iterator.next() has been renamed to iterator.__next__(),
and one example in the documentation still used next(). This caused the
example provided to fail the function creation since Python 2 is not
supported anymore since 19252e
doc: Fix example with __next__() in PL/Python function
Per PEP 3114, iterator.next() has been renamed to iterator.__next__(),
and one example in the documentation still used next(). This caused the
example provided to fail the function creation since Python 2 is not
supported anymore since 19252e
doc: Fix example with __next__() in PL/Python function
Per PEP 3114, iterator.next() has been renamed to iterator.__next__(),
and one example in the documentation still used next(). This caused the
example provided to fail the function creation since Python 2 is not
supported anymore since 19252e
doc: Fix example with __next__() in PL/Python function
Per PEP 3114, iterator.next() has been renamed to iterator.__next__(),
and one example in the documentation still used next(). This caused the
example provided to fail the function creation since Python 2 is not
supported anymore since 19252e
Test "options=-crole=" and "ALTER DATABASE SET role".
Commit 7b88529f4363994450bd4cd3c172006a8a77e222 fixed a regression
spanning these features, but it didn't test them. It did test code
paths sufficient for their present implementations, so no back-patch.
Reported by Matthew Woodcraft.
Discus
15 matches
Mail list logo
