On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:59:05PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 21 March 2014 18:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> >> Given the minor symptoms in released versions, I lean against a back-patch.
> >
> > FWIW, I'd lean toward a back-patch. It's probably not a big deal
> > either way, but I have a hard
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Given the minor symptoms in released versions, I lean against a back-patch.
> FWIW, I'd lean toward a back-patch. It's probably not a big deal
> either way, but I have a hard time seeing what risk we're avoiding by
> n
On 21 March 2014 18:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Given the minor symptoms in released versions, I lean against a back-patch.
>
> FWIW, I'd lean toward a back-patch. It's probably not a big deal
> either way, but I have a hard time seeing what risk we're avoiding by
> not back-patching, and it seems
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> We added these ConstrCheck fields for 9.2, but equalTupleDescs() did not get
> the memo. I looked for resulting behavior problems, and I found one in
> RelationClearRelation() only. Test case:
>
> set constraint_exclusion = on;
> drop table i
We added these ConstrCheck fields for 9.2, but equalTupleDescs() did not get
the memo. I looked for resulting behavior problems, and I found one in
RelationClearRelation() only. Test case:
set constraint_exclusion = on;
drop table if exists ccvalid_test;
create table ccvalid_test (c int);
alter
