On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 22:21, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:41 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> Thanks for the report! I guess we need something like the attached. > > > > > +1. > > > > Pushed, thanks for looking at it. > > I have changed the status of the commitfest entry to "Committed" as I > noticed the patch has already been committed. Well, the situation seems a little complex here. At first, this thread was dedicated to discussing the 'Examine-simple-variable-for-Var-in-CTE' patch, which has already been pushed in [1]. Subsequently, I proposed another patch 'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query' in [2], which is currently under review and is what the commitfest entry for. Later on, within the same thread, another patch was posted as a fix to the first patch and was subsequently pushed in [3]. I believe this sequence of events might have led to confusion. What is the usual practice in such situations? I guess I'd better to fork a new thread to discuss my proposed patch which is about the 'Propagate-pathkeys-from-CTEs-up-to-the-outer-query'. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/754093.1700250120%40sss.pgh.pa.us [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMbWs49gAHeEOn0rpdUUYXryaa60KZ8JKwk1aSERttY9caCYkA%40mail.gmail.com [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1941515.1704732682%40sss.pgh.pa.us Thanks Richard
