Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

I wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> What is the current state of this? Are we sticking with what Tom >> classified as drive-by breakage? > Since I was the one complaining, I'm willing to do the legwork to > insert a compatibility shim. I probably won't get to it today though, > this being rele

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 18 May 2015 at 10:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > What is the current state of this? Are we sticking with what Tom > > classified as drive-by breakage? > > Since I was the one complaining, I'm willing to do the legwork to > insert a compatibility shim. I probably won't get t

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

Andrew Dunstan writes: > What is the current state of this? Are we sticking with what Tom > classified as drive-by breakage? Since I was the one complaining, I'm willing to do the legwork to insert a compatibility shim. I probably won't get to it today though, this being release wrap day. In t

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 05/15/2015 07:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 05/15/2015 06:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 04:59, Tom Lane > wrote: The difference there was that that was specifically adding a new feature of value to FDWs. This is just drive-by breakage

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 05/15/2015 06:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 15 May 2015 at 04:59, Tom Lane > > wrote: >> >> The difference there was that that was specifically adding a new >> feature >> of value to FDWs. Th

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 05/15/2015 06:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 04:59, Tom Lane > wrote: The difference there was that that was specifically adding a new feature of value to FDWs. This is just drive-by breakage. I think that comment is reasonable. I will c

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 15 May 2015 at 04:59, Tom Lane wrote: > The difference there was that that was specifically adding a new feature > of value to FDWs. This is just drive-by breakage. > I think that comment is reasonable. I will continue with my commits of tablesample, then return to see if we can improve/rev

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> TBH, I think that this patch itself was a bad idea and should be reverted. >> I don't object to changing APIs used by external modules when there's a >> good reason to break them, but having looked at this patch all I

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs writes: > Separate block sampling functions > This patch broke buildfarm member crake. > >>

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 May 2015 at 04:06, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs >> wrote: >> > On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> >> >> Simon Riggs writes: >> >> > Separate block sampling functions >> >> >>

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Simon Riggs writes: Separate block sampling functions >>> This patch broke buildfarm member crake. >> OK, thanks. I missed that amongst the other unrelated failu

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 15 May 2015 at 04:06, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > > On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: > >> > >> Simon Riggs writes: > >> > Separate block sampling functions > >> > >> This patch broke buildfarm member crake. > > > > > > OK, thanks

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Simon Riggs writes: >> > Separate block sampling functions >> >> This patch broke buildfarm member crake. > > > OK, thanks. I missed that amongst the other unrelated failures. Looking now. This

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

On 15 May 2015 at 03:50, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > Separate block sampling functions > > This patch broke buildfarm member crake. > OK, thanks. I missed that amongst the other unrelated failures. Looking now. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

Simon Riggs writes: > Separate block sampling functions This patch broke buildfarm member crake. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql

[COMMITTERS] pgsql: Separate block sampling functions

Separate block sampling functions Refactoring ahead of tablesample patch Requested and reviewed by Michael Paquier Petr Jelinek Branch -- master Details --- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/83e176ec18d2a91dbea1d0d1bd94c38dc47cd77c Modified Files -- contrib/file_fdw/