On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:51 AM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:39 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:10 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 04:13:04PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > > > Patch 0002 needed a rebase, because a conflicting change to > > > > expected/rules.out has since been committed. > > > > > > The cfbot reports new conflicts since about a week ago with this patch: > > > Could you send a rebased patch? In the meantime I'll switch the cf > entry to > > > Waiting on Author. > > > > Turns out I had never compiled this patch set to exercise xml and lz4 > > tests, whose output files contained view definitions shown using \d > > that also needed to be updated in the 0002 patch. > > > > Fixed in the attached updated version. > > cfbot tells me it found a conflict when applying v7 on the latest > HEAD. Fixed in the attached v8. > > Hi, For patch 02, in the description: present for locking views during execition Typo: execution. + * to be used by the executor to lock the view relation and for the + * planner to be able to record the view relation OID in the PlannedStmt + * that it produces for the query. I think the sentence about executor can be placed after the sentence for the planner. For patch 01, GetRelPermissionInfo(): + return perminfo; + } + else keyword 'else' is not needed - the else block can be left-indented. Cheers
