On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: >>> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm >>> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense >>> to do. >> >> I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really >> an ABI violation: sepgsql_needs_fmgr_hook is supposed to return our notion >> of bool, but as things stand it's returning _Bool (which is why the >> compiler is complaining). Now we might get away with that on most >> hardware, but on platforms where those are different widths, it's possible >> to imagine function-return conventions that would make it fail. >> >> 0001b seems to only be needed for compilers that aren't smart enough >> to see that tclass won't be referenced for RELKIND_INDEX, so it's >> just cosmetic. > > Ok, committed/pushed that way. > > I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached. > Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll > have those by end of today and be able to commit the rest tomorrow.
Attached are the regression test updates for partitioned tables. Thanks, -- Mike Palmiotto Software Engineer Crunchy Data Solutions https://crunchydata.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
