On 07/14/2015 10:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I plan to commit the attached patches later today or tomorrow. But how do
you feel about back-patching this? It should be possible to backpatch,
although at a quick test it seems that there
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There was one bug in this patch: the COMMENT statement that was constructed
> didn't schema-qualify the relation, so if the ALTERed table was not in
> search_path, the operation would fail with a "relation not found" error (or
> add the c
On 07/08/2015 08:12 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 2015-07-04 13:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Well for indexes you don't really need to add the new AT command, as
IndexStmt has char *idxcom
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 2015-07-04 13:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> Well for indexes you don't really need to add the new AT command, as
>>> IndexStmt has char *idxcomment which it will automatically u
On 2015-07-04 13:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Well for indexes you don't really need to add the new AT command, as
IndexStmt has char *idxcomment which it will automatically uses as comment
if not NULL. While I am not huge fan of the idxcomment
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Well for indexes you don't really need to add the new AT command, as
> IndexStmt has char *idxcomment which it will automatically uses as comment
> if not NULL. While I am not huge fan of the idxcomment it doesn't seem to
> be easy to remove i
On 2015-07-03 15:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I was going through the code and have few comments:
- Why do you change the return value of TryReuseIndex? Can't we use reuse
the same OidIsValid(stmt->oldNode) check that ATExecAddIndex is doing
in
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I was going through the code and have few comments:
> - Why do you change the return value of TryReuseIndex? Can't we use reuse
> the same OidIsValid(stmt->oldNode) check that ATExecAddIndex is doing
> instead?
As pointed out by Heikki previo
On 2015-05-27 15:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
x...@resolvent.net writes:
In some circumstances, the comment on a table constraint disappears. Here
is an example:
Hm, yeah. The problem i
