From: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
Date: | 2020-12-01 09:08:26 |
Message-ID: | 87bfc0bb-34c3-b3fe-7674-0220055fabaa@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.12.2020 03:08, James Coleman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:39 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've pushed the 0001 part, i.e. the main fix. Not sure about the other
>> parts (comments and moving the code back to postgres_fdw) yet.
> I noticed the CF entry [1] got moved to the next CF; I'm thinking this
> entry should be marked as committed since the fix for the initial bug
> reported on this thread has been pushed. We have the parallel safety
> issue outstanding, but there's a separate thread and patch for that,
> so I'll make a new CF entry for that.
>
> I can mark it as committed, but I'm not sure how to "undo" (or if
> that's desirable) the move to the next CF.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> James
>
> 1: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2754/
>
>
Oops...
I must have rushed with this one, thank you for noticing.
I don't see how to move it back either. I think it's fine to mark it as
Committed where it is now.
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Georgios Kokolatos | 2020-12-01 09:10:38 | Re: Display individual query in pg_stat_activity |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-12-01 09:02:48 | Re: [POC] Fast COPY FROM command for the table with foreign partitions |