On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:36:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:04:14PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> >> > Slightly improved patch applied. >> >> >> >> Is it? >> > >> > The patch has a slightly modified 'if' statement to check a constant >> > before calling a function, and use elseif: >> > >> > < + if (!interpretOidsOption(stmt->options, true) && >> > cxt.hasoids) >> > --- >> > > + if (cxt.hasoids && !interpretOidsOption(stmt->options, >> > true)) >> > 47c57 >> > < + if (interpretOidsOption(stmt->options, true) && >> > !cxt.hasoids) >> > --- >> > > + else if (!cxt.hasoids && >> > interpretOidsOption(stmt->options, true)) >> > >> > I realize the change is subtle. >> >> What I meant was - I didn't see an attachment on that message. > > I didn't attach it as people have told me they can just as easily see > the patch via git, and since it was so similar, I didn't repost it. > Should I have? I can easily do that.
No, I just misread your email. I thought you said you had attached the patch; rereading it, I see that you said you had applied the patch. Silly me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
