On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:54 AM Jamison, Kirk <k.jami...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Monday, April 8, 2019 9:04 AM (GMT+9), Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The patch looks good to me. I have changed the commit message and ran > > the pgindent in the attached patch. Can you once see if that looks > > fine to you? Also, we should backpatch this till 9.6. So, can you > > once verify if the change is fine in all bank branches? Also, test > > with a force_parallel_mode option. I have already tested it with > > force_parallel_mode = 'regress' in HEAD, please test it in back > > branches as well. > > > > Thanks for the updated patch. > > I tested in back branches even with force_parallelmode and it is working > > as expected. But the patches apply is failing in back branches, so attached > > the patches for their branches. For v11 it applies with hunks. > > There are 3 patches for this thread: > _v5: for PG v11 to current head > _10: for PG10 branch > _96: for PG9.6 > > I have also tried applying these latest patches, . > The patch set works correctly from patch application, build to compilation. > I also tested with force_parallel_mode, and it works as intended. > > So I am marking this thread as “Ready for Committer”. >
Thanks, Hari and Jamison for verification. The patches for back-branches looks good to me. I will once again verify them before commit. I will commit this patch tomorrow unless someone has objections. Robert/Alvaro, do let me know if you see any problem with this fix? > I hope this makes it on v12 before the feature freeze. > Yes, I think fixing bugs should be fine unless we delay too much. I see one typo in the commit message (transactions as we that is what we do in ../transactions as that is what we do in ..), will fix it before commit. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com