Sorry for this late reply, I was very busy with the patch for pgbench..
On 04-04-2018 20:07, Simon Riggs wrote:
...
Which debug mode are we talking about, please?
-d 5
--
Marina Polyakova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
I'm sorry I was very busy with the patch for pgbench..
On 04-04-2018 19:19, Tom Lane wrote:
...
BTW, poking around in the grammar, I notice that MergeStmt did not
get added to RuleActionStmt. That seems like a rather serious
omission.
Thank you very much! I will try to do this, if you do not
On 4 April 2018 at 18:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, poking around in the grammar, I notice that MergeStmt did not
>>> get added to RuleActionStmt. That seems like a rather serious
>>> omission.
>
>> MERGE isn't a privilege, a tri
On 5 April 2018 at 11:31, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Attached patch refactors the grammar/parser side per your comments. We no
> longer use InsertStmt/UpdateStmt/DeleteStmt/SelectStmt as part of
> MergeAction. Instead we only collect the necessary information for running
> the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE a
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If the MERGE patch has broken this, I'm going to push back on that
> >> and push back on it hard, because it probably means there are a
> >> whole bunch of other raw-grammar
On 4 April 2018 at 18:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If the MERGE patch has broken this, I'm going to push back on that
>>> and push back on it hard, because it probably means there are a
>>> whole bunch of other raw-grammar-output-only
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the MERGE patch has broken this, I'm going to push back on that
>> and push back on it hard, because it probably means there are a
>> whole bunch of other raw-grammar-output-only node types that can
>> now get past the parser s
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, poking around in the grammar, I notice that MergeStmt did not
>> get added to RuleActionStmt. That seems like a rather serious
>> omission.
> MERGE isn't a privilege, a trigger action or a policy action. Why
> would it be i
On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marina Polyakova writes:
>> When debugging is enabled for server logging, isolation tests fail
>> because there're no corresponding output functions for InsertStmt /
>> DeleteStmt / UpdateStmt that are used in the output of the MergeAction
>> nodes (see
On 4 April 2018 at 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, poking around in the grammar, I notice that MergeStmt did not
> get added to RuleActionStmt. That seems like a rather serious
> omission.
MERGE isn't a privilege, a trigger action or a policy action. Why
would it be in RuleActionStmt?
Could you
Marina Polyakova writes:
> When debugging is enabled for server logging, isolation tests fail
> because there're no corresponding output functions for InsertStmt /
> DeleteStmt / UpdateStmt that are used in the output of the MergeAction
> nodes (see the attached regressions diffs and output). I
Hello, hackers!
When debugging is enabled for server logging, isolation tests fail
because there're no corresponding output functions for InsertStmt /
DeleteStmt / UpdateStmt that are used in the output of the MergeAction
nodes (see the attached regressions diffs and output). I also attached a
12 matches
Mail list logo
