Wrap multixact/members correctly during extension, take 2
In a50d97625497b7 I already changed this, but got it wrong for the case
where the number of members is larger than the number of entries that
fit in the last page of the last segment.
As reported by Serge Negodyuck in a followup to bug #86
Wrap multixact/members correctly during extension, take 2
In a50d97625497b7 I already changed this, but got it wrong for the case
where the number of members is larger than the number of entries that
fit in the last page of the last segment.
As reported by Serge Negodyuck in a followup to bug #86
Fix infinite loop when splitting inner tuples in SPGiST text indexes.
Previously, the code used a node label of zero both for strings that
contain no bytes beyond the inner tuple's prefix, and for cases where an
"allTheSame" inner tuple has to be split to allow a string with a different
next byte
Fix infinite loop when splitting inner tuples in SPGiST text indexes.
Previously, the code used a node label of zero both for strings that
contain no bytes beyond the inner tuple's prefix, and for cases where an
"allTheSame" inner tuple has to be split to allow a string with a different
next byte
Fix infinite loop when splitting inner tuples in SPGiST text indexes.
Previously, the code used a node label of zero both for strings that
contain no bytes beyond the inner tuple's prefix, and for cases where an
"allTheSame" inner tuple has to be split to allow a string with a different
next byte
Fix planner bug with nested PlaceHolderVars in 9.2 (only).
Commit 9e7e29c75ad441450f9b8287bd51c13521641e3b fixed some problems with
LATERAL references in PlaceHolderVars, one of which was that "createplan.c
wasn't handling nested PlaceHolderVars properly". I failed to see that
this problem might
Forward-port regression test for bug #10587 into 9.3 and HEAD.
Although this bug is already fixed in post-9.2 branches, the case
triggering it is quite different from what was under consideration
at the time. It seems worth memorializing this example in HEAD
just to make sure it doesn't get broke
Forward-port regression test for bug #10587 into 9.3 and HEAD.
Although this bug is already fixed in post-9.2 branches, the case
triggering it is quite different from what was under consideration
at the time. It seems worth memorializing this example in HEAD
just to make sure it doesn't get broke
