From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index |
Date: | 2013-01-25 22:10:14 |
Message-ID: | 510302C6.5030403@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/25/13 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> This matter was already closed:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=949
>>
>> It looks like your patch reverts part of that.
>
> Uh, I am confused because the patch at:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=950
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1352874080.4647.0@mofo
>
> shows "configuration parameter" being moved to <secondary>, though this
> commit:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94
The discussion yielded a patch that is different from the commit fest entry.
We index all GUC settings as
<primary><varname>something</varname> configuration parameter</primary>
which the commit a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94 also made the case for search_path.
Your two commits changed that again.
> shows it not as secondary. Would you please suggest a patch or patch
> it? Thanks.
I think both of your commits should be reverted.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-25 22:10:18 | Re: Potential autovacuum optimization: new tables |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-25 22:07:05 | Re: has_language_privilege returns incorrect answer for non-superuser |