Hi
> Sergei> PS: my note about comments in tests from my previous review is
> Sergei> actual too.
>
> I changed the comment when committing it.
Great, thank you!
regards, Sergei
> "Sergei" == Sergei Kornilov writes:
Sergei> PS: my note about comments in tests from my previous review is
Sergei> actual too.
I changed the comment when committing it.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:08 PM Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Patch is still applied cleanly on HEAD and passes check-world. I think
> ignoring FOR UPDATE clause is incorrect behavior.
With my reviewer hat: I agree.
With my CFM hat: It seems like this patch is ready to land so I have
set it to "Read
Hello
Patch is still applied cleanly on HEAD and passes check-world. I think ignoring
FOR UPDATE clause is incorrect behavior.
PS: my note about comments in tests from my previous review is actual too.
regards, Sergei
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hello
Patch is applied cleanly, compiles and pass check-world. Has t
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
Tom> +1 for not ignoring rowMarks, but this patch seems like a hack to
Tom> me. Why didn't you just add RowMarkClause as one of the known
Tom> alternative expression node types?
>> Because it's not an expression and nothing anywhere else in the
>> backend tre
On 19/01/2019 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing writes:
>> Does the extension need a version bump for this?
>
> We don't bump its version when we make any other change that affects
> its hash calculation. I don't think this could be back-patched,
> but Andrew wasn't proposing to do so (IIUC).
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Tom> +1 for not ignoring rowMarks, but this patch seems like a hack to
> Tom> me. Why didn't you just add RowMarkClause as one of the known
> Tom> alternative expression node types?
> Because it's not an expression and nothing anywhere else
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
>> I propose that it should not ignore rowMarks, per the attached patch or
>> something similar.
Tom> +1 for not ignoring rowMarks, but this patch seems like a hack to
Tom> me. Why didn't you just add RowMarkClause as one of the known
Vik Fearing writes:
> Does the extension need a version bump for this?
We don't bump its version when we make any other change that affects
its hash calculation. I don't think this could be back-patched,
but Andrew wasn't proposing to do so (IIUC).
regards, tom lane
Andrew Gierth writes:
> I propose that it should not ignore rowMarks, per the attached patch or
> something similar.
+1 for not ignoring rowMarks, but this patch seems like a hack to me.
Why didn't you just add RowMarkClause as one of the known alternative
expression node types? There's no advan
On 19/01/2019 15:43, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> pg_stat_statements considers a plain select and a select for update to
> be equivalent, which seems quite wrong to me as they will have very
> different performance characteristics due to locking.
>
> The only comment about it in the code is:
>
> /*
12 matches
Mail list logo
