On Thursday, July 12, 2018 5:53:18 PM CET Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> > It would be easier to figure this out if the btree_gist code weren't
> > so desperately undocumented. Teodor, do you remember why it's like
> > this?
>
> Will look.
Ping on this issue. I guess the patch I proposed isn't wrong in
It would be easier to figure this out if the btree_gist code weren't
so desperately undocumented. Teodor, do you remember why it's like
this?
Will look.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://ww
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:26:40 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > On Monday, July 9, 2018 7:41:59 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hi Pavel! For patches that purport to resolve bugs, we usually like to
> >> add a regression test case that demonstrates the bug in unpatched code.
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 7:41:59 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hi Pavel! For patches that purport to resolve bugs, we usually like to
>> add a regression test case that demonstrates the bug in unpatched code.
>> Can you provide a small test case that does so? (The BZ you poin
Hi Tom,
On Monday, July 9, 2018 7:41:59 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Raiskup writes:
> > while I tried to debug 'gcc -fstack-protector -O3' problems in [1], I
> > noticed
> > that gbt_var_union() mistreats the first vector element. Patch is attached.
>
> Hi Pavel! For patches that purport
Pavel Raiskup writes:
> while I tried to debug 'gcc -fstack-protector -O3' problems in [1], I noticed
> that gbt_var_union() mistreats the first vector element. Patch is attached.
Hi Pavel! For patches that purport to resolve bugs, we usually like to
add a regression test case that demonstrates
Hi hackers,
while I tried to debug 'gcc -fstack-protector -O3' problems in [1], I noticed
that gbt_var_union() mistreats the first vector element. Patch is attached.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544349
Pavel
>From 4e4f0fe8d2f74a85f37abdf095ab8aecf9329596 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2
