Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
I'll leave this alone for a day. If nobody objects, I will change
the ruleutils.c code to work with either value (to support
pg_upgrade) and change the code to set this to zero, for 9.3 and
forward only. I will change the 9.3 docs to mention that
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
If we were a little earlier in the release cycle I would argue that
if we're going to do anything with this column we should drop it.
Which is exactly what I think we should do as soon as we branch.
If we're going to do that, there doesn't seem to me
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
If we were a little earlier in the release cycle I would argue that
if we're going to do anything with this column we should drop it.
Which is exactly what I think we should do as soon as we branch.
If we're
Hi,
system catalog pg_rewrite column ev_attr document description as shown below
ev_attr - The column this rule is for (currently, always zero to indicate
the whole table)
But In the code the column value is always set as -1. can we change the
column description as below is fine?
Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
system catalog pg_rewrite column ev_attr document description as shown below
ev_attr - The column this rule is for (currently, always zero to indicate
the whole table)
But In the code the column value is always set as -1. can we change the
column
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Hari Babu haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
system catalog pg_rewrite column ev_attr document description as shown below
ev_attr - The column this rule is for (currently, always zero to indicate
the whole table)
But In the code the column value is
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, I think this is a bug and the right thing is to make the code
match the documentation not vice versa. ev_attr isn't being used for
much at the moment, but if it were being used as an AttrNumber, -1 would
not mean whole row. It would be a
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, I think this is a bug and the right thing is to make the code
match the documentation not vice versa.
I assume that this should be a 9.3 code fix, and a doc fix prior to
that, since it would require
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, I think this is a bug and the right thing is to make the code
match the documentation not vice versa.
I assume that this should be a 9.3 code fix, and a doc fix prior to
