On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:23:34AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
that this commit broke the
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:23:34AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I'm just going to remove the test. This is not very future-proof and
[ objections ]
FWIW, I concur with Robert's choice here. This test method is ugly and
fragile, and I'm not even thinking
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
that this commit broke the buildfarm?
Thanks for reporting the problem. This arose because the new test case
temporarily sets client_min_messages=DEBUG1. The
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
that this commit broke the buildfarm?
Thanks for reporting the problem. This arose because the
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
+ for (i = 0; i old_natts ret; i++)
+ ret =
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
+ for (i = 0; i old_natts ret;
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 19:05:44 -0300 2012:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
Thanks.
+ for (i = 0; i old_natts ret;
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't find this to be particularly
New version that repairs a defective test case.
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
index 712b0b0..1bf1de5 100644
*** a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
--- b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
***
*** 23,28
--- 23,29
#include
In 367bc426a1c22b9f6badb06cd41fc438fd034639, I introduced a
CheckIndexCompatible() that approves btree and hash indexes having changed to
a different operator class within the same operator family. To make that
valid, I also tightened the operator family contracts for those access methods
to
12 matches
Mail list logo
