Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2020-May-19, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, that would have been better per project protocol: if a tarball > re-wrap becomes necessary then it would be messy not to include this > change along with fixing whatever urgent bug there might be. > > However, I thought the case for delaying this fix till p

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-19 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it >>> means that it won't be included in it, right? >> Right. > Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the versi

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it >> means that it won't be included in it, right? > > Right. Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the version is tagged? My understanding

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Done. Thanks! > This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it > means that it won't be included in it, right? Right. regards, tom lane

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2020-May-19, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 5/19/20 4:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it > > means that it won't be included in it, right? > > Correct. Right. > I don't know why there was a delay, but it also doesn't bother me. I d

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Vik Fearing
On 5/19/20 4:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Done. Thanks! > > This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it > means that it won't be included in it, right? Correct. I don't know why there was a delay, but it

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Done. Thanks! This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped. So it means that it won't be included in it, right? -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2020-May-18, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote: > > > The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the to be > > absent (implying 1). > > > > We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo. > > Oops, yes. I added a test. Will get this pushed immediate

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Vik Fearing
On 5/18/20 7:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote: > >> The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the to be >> absent (implying 1). >> >> We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo. > > Oops, yes. I added a test. Will get this pushed immediately

Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote: > The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the to be > absent (implying 1). > > We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo. Oops, yes. I added a test. Will get this pushed immediately after I see beta1 produced. -- Álvaro Herrera

Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

2020-05-18 Thread Vik Fearing
The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the to be absent (implying 1). We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo. Patch attached. -- Vik Fearing diff --git a/src/backend/parser/gram.y b/src/backend/parser/gram.y index 3c78f2d1b5..a24b30f06f 100644 --- a/src/backend/parse