|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Joe Nelson <joe(at)begriffs(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Optimization of some jsonb functions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-Sep-19, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Well, I think that was useless, so I rebased again -- attached.
> ... which is how you find out that 0001 as an independent patch is not
> really a valid one, since it depends on an API change that does not
> happen until 0005.
... and there were other compilation problems too, presumably fixed
silently by Joe in his rebase, but which I fixed again for this series
which now seems more credible. I tested compile and regression tests
after each patch, it all works locally.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2019-09-19 04:22:19||Re: Feature request: binary NOTIFY|
|Previous Message||Mitar||2019-09-19 03:46:25||Re: Feature request: binary NOTIFY|