On 2017/12/02 2:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> I forgot to consider the fact that mtstate could be NULL in
>> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting(), so would result in dereferencing NULL
>> pointer when called from CopyFrom(), which fixed in the attach
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I forgot to consider the fact that mtstate could be NULL in
> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting(), so would result in dereferencing NULL
> pointer when called from CopyFrom(), which fixed in the attached updated
> patch.
a ? b : false can more si
On 2017/12/01 11:01, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/12/01 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Second, this would be the first place where the second argument to
>> ExecOpenIndices() is passed simply as true. The only other caller
>> that doesn't pass constant false is in nodeModifyTable.c and looks
>> like
On 2017/12/01 11:27, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 November 2017 at 13:45, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>
>>> Why? There is no caller that needs information.
>>
>> It is to be used if and when ExecInsert() calls
>> ExecCheckIndexConstraints() in the code path to handle ON CONFLICT DO
>> NOTHING that we're
On 24 November 2017 at 13:45, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Why? There is no caller that needs information.
>
> It is to be used if and when ExecInsert() calls
> ExecCheckIndexConstraints() in the code path to handle ON CONFLICT DO
> NOTHING that we're intending to support in some cases. Note that it w
On 2017/12/01 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> On 2017/11/24 11:45, Amit Langote wrote:
Meanwhile, rebased patch is attached.
>>>
>>> Oops, forgot to attach in the last email.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/11/24 11:45, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, rebased patch is attached.
>>
>> Oops, forgot to attach in the last email. Attached now.
>
> Moved to next CF.
I have two
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/11/24 11:45, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Meanwhile, rebased patch is attached.
>
> Oops, forgot to attach in the last email. Attached now.
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
On 2017/11/24 11:45, Amit Langote wrote:
> Meanwhile, rebased patch is attached.
Oops, forgot to attach in the last email. Attached now.
Thanks,
Amit
From ee7ef9d35f810c8c38c0ec40205f7b8c5d1f696d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: amit
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:13:38 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Allow ON
Thank you Simon for the review.
On 2017/11/20 7:33, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 2 August 2017 at 00:56, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> The patch's job is simple:
>
> Patch no longer applies and has some strange behaviours.
>
>> - Remove the check in the parser that causes an error the moment the
>> ON
On 2 August 2017 at 00:56, Amit Langote wrote:
> The patch's job is simple:
Patch no longer applies and has some strange behaviours.
> - Remove the check in the parser that causes an error the moment the
> ON CONFLICT clause is found.
Where is the check and test that blocks ON CONFLICT UPDAT
11 matches
Mail list logo
