Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:23:34AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm just going to remove the test. This is not very future-proof and
> [ objections ]
FWIW, I concur with Robert's choice here. This test method is ugly and
fragile, and I'm not even thinking about the questio
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:23:34AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
> >> that this commit broke the buildfarm?
> >
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
>> that this commit broke the buildfarm?
>
> Thanks for reporting the problem. This arose because the new test c
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
> that this commit broke the buildfarm?
Thanks for reporting the problem. This arose because the new test case
temporarily sets client_min_messages=DEBUG1. The defau
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> New version that repairs a defective test case.
>>
>> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
>>
>> + for (i = 0;
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > New version that repairs a defective test case.
>
> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
Thanks.
> + for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
> +
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 19:05:44 -0300 2012:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > New version that rep
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > New version that repairs a defective test case.
>>
>> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié ene 25 17:32:49 -0300 2012:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > New version that repairs a defective test case.
>
> Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
>
> + for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
>
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> New version that repairs a defective test case.
Committed. I don't find this to be particularly good style:
+ for (i = 0; i < old_natts && ret; i++)
+ ret = (!IsPolymorphicType(get_opclass_input_type(classObjectId[i
+
New version that repairs a defective test case.
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
index 712b0b0..1bf1de5 100644
*** a/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
--- b/src/backend/commands/indexcmds.c
***
*** 23,28
--- 23,29
#include "cata
In 367bc426a1c22b9f6badb06cd41fc438fd034639, I introduced a
CheckIndexCompatible() that approves btree and hash indexes having changed to
a different operator class within the same operator family. To make that
valid, I also tightened the operator family contracts for those access methods
to addre
12 matches
Mail list logo
