| From: | Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) |
| Date: | 2025-11-19 16:51:13 |
| Message-ID: | 2f9f72d3-cca2-4c4c-a104-46d1119682f7@Spark |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 Nov 2025 at 15:08 +0100, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> I made a quick pass over the code, and I'm attaching a few more
> suggested updates. This is mostly cosmetic stuff (e.g., fixing a few
> code comments that were overlooked), plus some minor refactoring to
> reduce code duplication.
Neat!
For the CASE default, elog(ERROR, "unrecognized LockClauseStrength %d” that was removed.
Would this now trigger a compile time error/warning? And are you supposed to get 0 warnings when compiling?
(I get a large amount of warnings "warning: 'pg_restrict' macro redefined" on master, but that could just be something with my environment)
More of a question, the changes are an improvement.
/Viktor
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Fittl | 2025-11-19 16:54:20 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-11-19 16:49:42 | Re: Consistently use the XLogRecPtrIsInvalid() macro |