I wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I guess I'm leaning towards backpatching, but it's not entirely clear-cut.
> That's where I stand too. I'll wait a day or so to see if anyone
> else comments; but if not, I'll back-patch.
Hearing no objections, done that way.
rega
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 1 Feb 2020, at 20:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 0002 attached isn't committable, because nobody would want the overhead
>> in production, but it seems like a good trick to keep up our sleeves.
> Thats a neat trick, I wonder if it would be worth maintaining a curated list
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> I guess I'm leaning towards backpatching, but it's not entirely clear-cut.
That's where I stand too. I'll wait a day or so to see if anyone
else comments; but if not, I'll back-patch.
regards, tom lane
> On 2 Feb 2020, at 17:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thoughts?
Keeping TEXT explain stable across minor versions is very appealing, but more
so from a policy standpoint than a technical one. The real-world implication
is probably quite small, but that's a very unscientific guess (searching Github
didn'
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 11:48:32AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Does that prevent backpatching this, or are we Ok with EXPLAIN text output
> > not
> > being stable across minors? AFAICT Pg::Explain still works fine with this
> > change, but mileage may vary for other parsers.
> I'm not sure about t
[ cc'ing depesz to see what he thinks about this ]
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 1 Feb 2020, at 20:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This does lead to some field
>> order rearrangement in text mode, as per the regression test changes,
>> but I think that's not a big deal. (A change can only happen if the
> On 1 Feb 2020, at 20:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hamid Akhtar writes:
>> I've reviewed and verified this patch and IMHO, this is ready to be
>> committed.
>
> I took a look at this and I don't think it's really going in the right
> direction. ISTM the clear intent of this code was to attach the
Hamid Akhtar writes:
> I've reviewed and verified this patch and IMHO, this is ready to be committed.
I took a look at this and I don't think it's really going in the right
direction. ISTM the clear intent of this code was to attach the "Subplans
Removed" item as a field of the parent [Merge]App
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
I've reviewed and verified this patch and IMHO, this is ready
