On 6/15/21 1:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >> On 2021-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think this ought to be reverted and reviewed more carefully. > >> It seems to me that removing the cast-to-range[] is a sufficient fix, >> and that we can do with only the unnest part for pg14; the casts can be >> added in 15 (if at all). That would mean reverting only half the patch. > > Might be a reasonable solution. But right now I'm annoyed that the > buildfarm is broken, and I'm also convinced that this didn't get > adequate testing.
I had focused testing primarily on the "unnest" cases that I had described in my original note. I did a couple of casts and had no issue; I did not test with pg_dump / pg_upgrade, but noting to do so in the future in cases like this. > I think "revert and reconsider" is the way > forward for today. I don't want the buildfarm broken so I'm fine if this is the best way forward. If we can keep the "unnest" functionality I would strongly suggest it as that was the premise of the original note to complete the utility of multiranges for v14. The casting, while convenient, is not needed. Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
