From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |
Date: | 2000-02-11 07:16:21 |
Message-ID: | 38A3B745.E720A4AC@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Could someone run a "-d 99" query using the following from the
> > regression test (rules.sql):
> This doesn't look very detailed, is it really what you wanted?
Hmm. I expected to get a full plan (labeled "plan:"). Did you do the
query or just an "explain"?
I'm compiling this way, though I don't think that it matters for this:
$ gcc -I../../include -I../../backend -O2 -m486 -O2 -g -O0
-DUSE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DENABLE_OUTER_JOINS -DEXEC_MERGEJOINDEBUG -Wall
-Wmissing-prototypes -I.. -c copyfuncs.c -o copyfuncs.o
> Any changes in backend/optimizer/ ? I've got a bunch of uncommitted
> changes there myself.
Not too much. Though I've got a null pointer problem in executor for
mergejoins and I'm not certain where it is coming from. Here are the
files which have changed in the optimizer/ tree:
[postgres(at)golem optimizer]$ cvs -q update .
M prep/prepunion.c
M util/clauses.c
The changes are minor; I'm pretty sure I can remerge if you want to
commit your stuff (at least if your stuff is isolated to the
backend/optimizer/ part of the tree).
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-11 07:20:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-02-11 07:11:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] The persistance of C functions |