On 2015-07-12 22:45:18 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm right now not really coming up with a better idea how to fix
this. So I guess I'll apply something close to this tomorrow.
Took a bit longer than that :(
I've pushed a version of your patch. I just opted to remove p_is_update
instead of
On 2015-05-28 18:31:56 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Fix bug in unique index inference
ON CONFLICT unique index inference had a thinko that could affect cases
where the user-supplied inference clause required that an attribute
match a particular (user named) collation
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I've pushed a version of your patch. I just opted to remove p_is_update
instead of allowing both to be set at the same time. To me that seemed
simpler.
I would be hesitant to remove a struct field from a struct that
On July 24, 2015 7:57:43 PM GMT+02:00, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
I've pushed a version of your patch. I just opted to remove
p_is_update
instead of allowing both to be set at the same time. To me that
seemed
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
+ else
+ {
+ Node *nattExpr = list_nth(idxExprs, (natt - 1) -
nplain);
+
+ /*
+ * Note that unlike routines like
On 2015-05-28 14:37:43 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
To fix, allow ParseState to reflect that an individual statement can be
both p_is_insert and p_is_update at the same time.
/* Process DO UPDATE */
if (onConflictClause-action == ONCONFLICT_UPDATE)
{
+ /*
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
But that's more crummy API's fault than yours.
As you probably noticed, the only reason the p_is_update and
p_is_insert fields exist is for transformAssignedExpr() -- in fact, in
the master branch, nothing checks the value
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Debugging this allowed me to come up with a significantly simplified
approach. Attached is a new version of the original fix. Details are
in commit message -- there is no actual need to have
search_indexed_tlist_for_var()
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
My fix for this issue
(0001-Fix-bug-with-whole-row-Vars-in-excluded-targetlist.patch) still
missed something. There needs to be additional handling in
ruleutils.c:
Debugging this allowed me to come up with a significantly
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Attached, revised version incorporates this small fix, while adding an
additional big fix, and a number of small style tweaks.
This is mainly concerned with fixing the bug I was trying to fix when
I spotted the minor
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
This concerns a thinko in unique index inference. See the commit
message for full details.
It seems I missed a required defensive measure here. Attached patch
adds it, too.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Attached patch adds such a pfree() call.
Attached, revised version incorporates this small fix, while adding an
additional big fix, and a number of small style tweaks.
This is mainly concerned with fixing the bug I was
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
A second attached patch fixes another, largely independent bug. I
noticed array assignment with ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE was broken. See
commit message for full details.
Finally, here is a third patch, fixing the final bug
13 matches
Mail list logo
