On 2019-May-11, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Also, as this thread's problem has been solved, perhaps it would be
> > better to spawn a new thread, and to add a new entry in the CF app for
> > the refactoring set so as it attracts the correct
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:28:43AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I attach the switch refactoring that applies on top of current HEAD,
> > and the reindex_system_catalogs() removal in a different patch in case
> > that's too much during
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:28:43AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I attach the switch refactoring that applies on top of current HEAD,
> and the reindex_system_catalogs() removal in a different patch in case
> that's too much during feature freeze.
Both Look fine to me at quick glance, but I have
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 6:04 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:25:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > The refactoring bits are fine for HEAD. For back-branches I would
> > > suggest using the simplest patch of upthread.
> >
> > Makes sense to me t
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:25:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > The refactoring bits are fine for HEAD. For back-branches I would
> > suggest using the simplest patch of upthread.
>
> Makes sense to me too. The refactoring is mostly to make future
> additions easier, so
Michael Paquier writes:
> The refactoring bits are fine for HEAD. For back-branches I would
> suggest using the simplest patch of upthread.
Makes sense to me too. The refactoring is mostly to make future
additions easier, so there's not much point for back branches.
> That's perhaps too much g
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:58:03PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:33 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I did have the same thought. It seem clear now that we should do it :-)
>> ISTM that the way to fix that problem is to use the proposed enum
>> everywhere and turn it into
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:33 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2019-May-10, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:43 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > Patch is good as far as it goes, but I wonder if it'd be smarter to
> > > convert the function's "type" argument from a string to an enum,
On 2019-May-10, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:43 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Patch is good as far as it goes, but I wonder if it'd be smarter to
> > convert the function's "type" argument from a string to an enum,
> > and then replace the if/else chains with switches?
>
> I've al
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 4:43 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-May-10, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >> I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
> >> saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
> >> reindexing a table or an index.
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-May-10, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
>> saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
>> reindexing a table or an index.
> Kudos, good find -- that's a 14 years old bug, introduced in
On 2019-May-10, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
> saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
> reindexing a table or an index.
Kudos, good find -- that's a 14 years old bug, introduced in this commit:
Author: Bruce M
> On 10 May 2019, at 12:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:02:52AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
>> saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
>> reindexing a table or an index.
>>
>>
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:02:52AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
> saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
> reindexing a table or an index.
>
> Trivial fix attached.
Oops. That's true, nice catch. This
Hi,
I just noticed that reindexdb could report an extraneous message
saying an error happened while reindexing a database if it failed
reindexing a table or an index.
Trivial fix attached.
diff --git a/src/bin/scripts/reindexdb.c b/src/bin/scripts/reindexdb.c
index d6f3efd313..897ad9a71a 100644
-
15 matches
Mail list logo
