| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |
| Date: | 2016-04-08 18:31:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2Ng37heGyn3JhQc5vZQWnhbj7TettL=25b308sjK5Sw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])
>
> Buildfarm members that don't like // comments are dying on this bit
> in tuplesort.c:
>
> state->nKeys = IndexRelationGetNumberOfKeyAttributes(indexRel); //FIXME
>
> I assume that the problem here is larger than just failure to adhere to
> C89 comment style. Was this patch really ready to commit? I'm not very
> happy that such a large patch went from "Needs review" to "Committed" in
> the blink of an eye on the very last commitfest day ... and artifacts like
> this aren't doing anything to increase my confidence in it.
+1. I wonder if this should be reverted entirely.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-08 18:38:37 | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-08 18:29:53 | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-08 18:33:32 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-08 18:29:53 | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |