On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > By "inconsistent" you mean that pre-10 versions will have different
> > expected output than versions with WAL-logged hash indexes?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > I don't see
> > why that
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:03 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Ka
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:07:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this functio
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:30 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
> > > correct? Are you looking at some differ
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:24 PM Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
> > correct? Are you looking at some different branch?
>
> Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multir
Hello,
I've done some code coverage testing by running make check-world. It
doesn't show any difference in the test coverage. The patch looks good to
me.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Mahendra Thalor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I don't see this function on the master branch. Is this function name
> correct? Are you looking at some different branch?
Sorry about that! You're right, I was on my multirange branch. But I
see the same thing on latest master (but calling h
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:23 AM Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > In general, the hash_range is covered by some of the existing test,
> > but I don't which test. See the code coverage report here:
> > https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/ut
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> In general, the hash_range is covered by some of the existing test,
> but I don't which test. See the code coverage report here:
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c.gcov.html
Thanks! I did some experimenting, a
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:48 AM Paul A Jungwirth
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I noticed the tests for range types do this:
>
> create table numrange_test2(nr numrange);
> create index numrange_test2_hash_idx on numrange_test2 (nr);
>
> Does that need a `using hash`? It seems like that's the intention.
>
Hello,
I noticed the tests for range types do this:
create table numrange_test2(nr numrange);
create index numrange_test2_hash_idx on numrange_test2 (nr);
Does that need a `using hash`? It seems like that's the intention. We
only use that table for equality comparisions. The script already
creat
11 matches
Mail list logo