"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> the attached version works fine for me.
>
> Yeah, that should do it. Will apply.
Pushed to master and REL9_2_STABLE.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://ww
> Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The grammar changes look wrong: I think you eliminated the
>>> ability to have zero setup steps, no? Instead, setup_list should
>>> expand to either empty or "setup_list setup".
>
>> I tried that first, but had shift/reduce con
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The grammar changes look wrong: I think you eliminated the ability
>> to have zero setup steps, no? Instead, setup_list should expand to
>> either empty or "setup_list setup".
> I tried that first, but had shift/reduce conflicts.
[ scratches head
> Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken
>> SSI. I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at
>> that, but the first thing I wanted was a test to show the
>> breakage.
>
> Ugh. That sounds like a release-blocker
I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken SSI.
I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at that, but
the first thing I wanted was a test to show the breakage. I couldn't
find a way to do that without running VACUUM after loading data to
the test tables, and bec
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken SSI.
> I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at that, but
> the first thing I wanted was a test to show the breakage.
Ugh. That sounds like a release-blocker. What's your ETA for a fix?
