From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
Date: | 2018-01-17 21:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 6772.1516223320@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Looks OK to me. Would it be worth annotating the added regression test
>> case with a comment that this once caused EPQ-related planning problems?
> I tend to think somebody who is curious about the origin of any
> particular test can just use 'git blame' and/or 'git log -Gwhatever'
> to figure out which commits added it, and that therefore it's not
> worth including that in the comment explicitly. But I don't care
> deeply.
It's debatable perhaps -- I tend to err in the other direction.
But likewise, I don't care deeply. Just push it ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-17 21:25:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-17 21:06:48 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |