On 2017/05/14 1:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached is the correct version.
>
> Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with
> the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item. You argued
> that wouldn't w
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Attached is the correct version.
Thank you! I committed 0001 with a couple of cosmetic tweaks and with
the change I previously suggested around partexprs_item. You argued
that wouldn't work because the contents of partexprs_item was
modifi
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Fixed.
>>
>> This seems to be the same patch version as last time, so none of the
>> things you mention as fixed are, in fact
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Fixed.
>
> This seems to be the same patch version as last time, so none of the
> things you mention as fixed are, in fact, fixed.
We are kind of running out of time here before beta1
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Fixed.
This seems to be the same patch version as last time, so none of the
things you mention as fixed are, in fact, fixed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hac
On 2017/05/12 12:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>>> Next update on this issue by Thursday 5/11.
>>
>> Attached updated patches.
>
> Thanks. 0001, at least, really needs a pgindent run. Also, my
> compiler has this apparently-justifiable complain
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> Next update on this issue by Thursday 5/11.
>
> Attached updated patches.
Thanks. 0001, at least, really needs a pgindent run. Also, my
compiler has this apparently-justifiable complaint:
partition.c:1767:5: error: variable 'cur_op_intp'
On 2017/05/10 12:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Yes, disallowing this in the first place is the best thing to do.
>> Attached patch 0001 implements that. With the patch:
>
> Committed.
Thanks.
> With regard to 0002, some of the resulting const
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Yes, disallowing this in the first place is the best thing to do.
> Attached patch 0001 implements that. With the patch:
Committed.
With regard to 0002, some of the resulting constraints are a bit more
complicated than seems desirable:
crea
On 2017/05/03 6:30, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the
>> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case
>> of multi-column range partitioning. See below
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the
> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case
> of multi-column range partitioning. See below:
>
> create table p (a int, b int) partition
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Hi Beena,
>
> On 2017/05/02 17:47, Beena Emerson wrote:
> > Hello Amit,
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it see
Hi Beena,
On 2017/05/02 17:47, Beena Emerson wrote:
> Hello Amit,
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote > wrote:
>
>> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the
>> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case
>> of multi-col
Hello Amit,
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the
> range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case
> of multi-column range partitioning. See below:
>
> create table p (a int, b
Per an off-list report from Olaf Gawenda (thanks Olaf), it seems that the
range partition's constraint is sometimes incorrect, at least in the case
of multi-column range partitioning. See below:
create table p (a int, b int) partition by range (a, b);
create table p1 partition of p for values fro
15 matches
Mail list logo
