On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Please review and fix this compiler warning:
indexcmds.c: In function ‘CheckIndexCompatible’:
indexcmds.c:126:15: warning: variable ‘amoptions’ set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
I have removed the offending
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On mån, 2011-07-18 at 11:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Drat; fixed in this version. My local branches contain a large test battery
that I filter out of the diff before posting. This time, that filter also
removed an essential part of the patch.
OK, I'm pretty happy with this
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Drat; fixed in this version. My local branches contain a large test battery
that I filter out of the diff before posting. This time, that filter also
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 02:44:49PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Drat; fixed in this version. My local branches contain a large test
battery
that I
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new operator
classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column. It then
checks those against the existing values for the same. I figured that
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new operator
classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column. It then
checks
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch n...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new
operator
classes,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On first blush, that looks a whole lot cleaner. I'll try to find some
time for a more detailed review soon.
This seems not to compile for me:
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 09:55:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On first blush, that looks a whole lot cleaner. ?I'll try to find some
time for a more detailed review soon.
This seems not to compile for me:
gcc -O2
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:42:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Here's the call stack in question:
? ? ? ?RelationBuildLocalRelation
? ? ? ?heap_create
? ? ? ?index_create
? ? ? ?DefineIndex
? ? ? ?ATExecAddIndex
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:42:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
Here's the call stack in question:
? ? ? ?RelationBuildLocalRelation
? ? ? ?heap_create
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:11:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:45:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:45:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
[patch to avoid index rebuilds]
With respect to the documentation hunks, it seems to me that
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:11:11PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:45:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
[patch to avoid index
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
[patch to avoid index rebuilds]
With respect to the documentation hunks, it seems to me that the first
hunk might be made clearer by leaving the paragraph of which it is a
part as-is, and adding another paragraph afterwards
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:45:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
[patch to avoid index rebuilds]
With respect to the documentation hunks, it seems to me that the first
hunk might be made clearer by leaving the paragraph of
18 matches
Mail list logo
