On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mike Palmiotto
wrote:
> One thing that concerns me is the first EXPLAIN plan from regress_rls_dave:
> +EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM part_document WHERE f_leak(dtitle);
> + Q
nner, or is
it a bug?
>
> +SELECT * FROM part_document;
> + did | cid | dlevel | dauthor | dtitle
> +-+-++---+-
> + 1 | 11 | 1 | regress_rls_bob | my first novel
> Adding an "ORDER BY did" as well here would make the test output more
> predictable.
D
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 11:57 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>>> Unless Robert objects, I'll work with Mike to
do with my
configuration/environment over here. I'm working through those issues
right now. In the meantime, if you want to see the regression tests as
they stand, please see the attached patch.
Thanks,
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com
From 48a
expect we'll
> have those by end of today and be able to commit the rest tomorrow.
Attached are the regression test updates for partitioned tables.
Thanks,
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mike Palmiotto
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> On 4/5/17 12:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Conclusion: Fedora's gcc is playing fast and loose somehow with the
>>>>
atch suggestion, except that we can replace
> the parenthetical comment with something like "(We don't care if
> redefines "true"/"false"; those are close enough.)".
>
Sounds good. Updated patchset will include that verbiage, along with
some regression tests
me in 30 minutes from now, after I have gotten
> my first cup of coffee ;-)
After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches.
Please see attached for further review.
Thanks,
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com
From be692f
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto
> wrote:
>> Attached you will find two patches, which were rebased on master as of
>> 156d388 (applied with `git am --revert [patch file]`). The first gets
>> rid of some
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Palmiotto
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Mike Palmiotto
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that sepgsql hasn't been updated to work with RLS yet, either,
>>&g
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Mike Palmiotto
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> Note that sepgsql hasn't been updated to work with RLS yet, either,
>> but we didn't regard that as an open item for RLS, or if we did the
>&g
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Mike Palmiotto
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>> While going over the contri
ter hook in
StoreCatalogInheritance1. It seems like it may just be an issue of
adding the RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE to sepgsql_relation_post_create.
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> While going over the contrib modules, I noticed that sepgsql was not
> updated for partitioned tables. What that appears to mean is that it's
> not possible to define labels on partitioned tables. As I recall,
> accessing the
14 matches
Mail list logo
