| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:06:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaYH5y9OsApchOjrwi0mWGnOrcREp8Ua9ViDGkr=H2Prg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Thanks for the review. Updated patch attached.
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-17 21:08:40 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-01-17 21:01:07 | Re: jsonpath |