On 26 March 2014 19:43, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: >> > I've attached an updated invtrans_strictstrict_base patch which has the >> > feature removed. >> >> What is the state of play on this patch? Is the latest version what's in >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64f96fd9-64d1-40b9-8861-e61820292...@phlo.org >> plus this sub-patch? Is everybody reasonably happy with it? I don't >> see it marked "ready for committer" in the CF app, but time is running >> out. >> > > As far as I know the only concern left was around the extra stats in the > explain output, which I removed in the patch I attached in the previous > email. >
Agreed. That was my last concern regarding the base patch, and I agree that removing the new explain output is probably the best course of action, given that we haven't reached consensus as to what the most useful output would be. > The invtrans_strictstrict_base.patch in my previous email replaces the > invtrans_strictstrict_base_038070.patch in that Florian sent here > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/64f96fd9-64d1-40b9-8861-e61820292...@phlo.org > all of the other patches are unchanged so it's save to use Florian's latest > ones > > Perhaps Dean can confirm that there's nothing else outstanding? > Florian mentioned upthread that the docs hadn't been updated to reflect the latest changes, so I think they need a little attention. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
