Skip not SOAP-supported indexes while transforming an OR clause into SAOP
There is no point in transforming OR-clauses into SAOP's if the target index
doesn't support SAOP scans anyway. This commit adds corresponding checks
to match_orclause_to_indexcol() and group_similar_or_args(). The first c
Add tests for foreign keys with case-insensitive collations
Some of the behaviors of the different referential actions, such as
the difference between NO ACTION and RESTRICT are best illustrated
using a case-insensitive collation. So add some tests for that.
(What is actually being tested here i
doc: Improve description of referential actions
Some of the differences between NO ACTION and RESTRICT were not
explained fully.
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ea5b2777-266a-46fa-852f-6fca6ec48...@eisentraut.org
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org
psql: Add tab completion for COPY (MERGE ...
The underlying feature for this was added in PostgreSQL 17.
Author: Jian He
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cacjufxemnjxvf1der1zbrjbjameclrzz+yaabuqdkh_...@mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
REL_17_STABLE
Details
---
https://git
psql: Add tab completion for COPY (MERGE ...
The underlying feature for this was added in PostgreSQL 17.
Author: Jian He
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cacjufxemnjxvf1der1zbrjbjameclrzz+yaabuqdkh_...@mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgr
Remove useless casts to (void *)
Many of them just seem to have been copied around for no real reason.
Their presence causes (small) risks of hiding actual type mismatches
or silently discarding qualifiers
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/461ea37c-8b58-43b4-9736-52884e862..
Fix MinGW %d vs %lu warnings in back branches.
Commit 352f6f2d used %d instead of %lu to format DWORD (unsigned long)
with psprintf(). The _WIN32_WINNT value recently changed for MinGW in
REL_15_STABLE (commit d700e8d7), so the code was suddenly being
compiled, with warnings from gcc.
The warnin
Fix MinGW %d vs %lu warnings in back branches.
Commit 352f6f2d used %d instead of %lu to format DWORD (unsigned long)
with psprintf(). The _WIN32_WINNT value recently changed for MinGW in
REL_15_STABLE (commit d700e8d7), so the code was suddenly being
compiled, with warnings from gcc.
The warnin
Fix MinGW %d vs %lu warnings in back branches.
Commit 352f6f2d used %d instead of %lu to format DWORD (unsigned long)
with psprintf(). The _WIN32_WINNT value recently changed for MinGW in
REL_15_STABLE (commit d700e8d7), so the code was suddenly being
compiled, with warnings from gcc.
The warnin
Avoid mislabeling of lateral references when pulling up a subquery.
If we are pulling up a subquery that's under an outer join, and
the subquery's target list contains a strict expression that uses
both a subquery variable and a lateral-reference variable, it's okay
to pull up the expression witho
Avoid mislabeling of lateral references when pulling up a subquery.
If we are pulling up a subquery that's under an outer join, and
the subquery's target list contains a strict expression that uses
both a subquery variable and a lateral-reference variable, it's okay
to pull up the expression witho
Avoid mislabeling of lateral references when pulling up a subquery.
If we are pulling up a subquery that's under an outer join, and
the subquery's target list contains a strict expression that uses
both a subquery variable and a lateral-reference variable, it's okay
to pull up the expression witho
psql: Sprinkle more CppAsString2() in describe.c
Like 91f5a4a000ea for pg_amcheck, this makes the code more
self-documented as there is less need to look in the headers what a
hardcoded value means. This touches queries related to procedures, AMs,
functions, databases, relations, constraints, col
Richard Guo writes:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems to be sufficient to just not mark lateral
>> references at all in this case. (I have a nagging feeling that more
>> complexity may be needed in cases where there are several levels of
>> outer join, but some attemp
On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems to be sufficient to just not mark lateral
> references at all in this case. (I have a nagging feeling that more
> complexity may be needed in cases where there are several levels of
> outer join, but some attempts to break it with that di
Fix typo in header comment for set_operation_ordered_results_useful
Reported-by: Richard Guo
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cambws492vmy3xnjdzrtqthfftk6hvedwhreqh7exggf_h5j...@mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/b6612aedc53a6bf069eba5e35
Fix wording in comment
Author: Peter Smith
Reviewed-by: vignesh C
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/cahut+pve+2t2etdtahi3n+xbcg_uyrshqucbaadjcfppqgl...@mail.gmail.com
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/0c01f509a38f5b1f5fab26d98ae55d796541c2e4
Modified
17 matches
Mail list logo