[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

2017-07-18 Thread Amit Langote 
On 2017/07/18 16:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2017/07/18 11:03, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:
>>> The posted patches look OK to me.  Barring developments, I will commit
>>> them on 2017-07-17, or send another update by then.
>>
>> Committed them.
> 
> Thank you!

Thank you both.

Regards,
Amit



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

2017-07-18 Thread Etsuro Fujita 

On 2017/07/18 11:03, Robert Haas wrote:

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:

The posted patches look OK to me.  Barring developments, I will commit
them on 2017-07-17, or send another update by then.


Committed them.


Thank you!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

2017-07-17 Thread Robert Haas 
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> The posted patches look OK to me.  Barring developments, I will commit
> them on 2017-07-17, or send another update by then.

Committed them.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

2017-07-10 Thread Robert Haas 
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Noah Misch  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 06:47:26PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> > Looks odd to me because the error message doesn't show any DETAIL info;
>> > since the CTE query, which produces the message, is the same as the above
>> > query, the message should also be the same as the one for the above
>> > query.
>>
>> I agree that the DETAIL should be shown.
>
>> The patch keeps tests that you added in your patch.  Added this to the
>> open items list.
>
> [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Robert,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

The posted patches look OK to me.  Barring developments, I will commit
them on 2017-07-17, or send another update by then.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: Oddity in error handling of constraint violation in ExecConstraints for partitioned tables

2017-07-09 Thread Noah Misch 
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 06:47:26PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Looks odd to me because the error message doesn't show any DETAIL info;
> > since the CTE query, which produces the message, is the same as the above
> > query, the message should also be the same as the one for the above
> > query.
> 
> I agree that the DETAIL should be shown.

> The patch keeps tests that you added in your patch.  Added this to the
> open items list.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers