Re: bug in citext's upgrade script for parallel aggregates

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bug in citext's upgrade script for parallel aggregates
Date: 2016-07-26 19:39:35
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobwg-MZPiJZuZS46W8DHRdzBxVawBGBRzvO-FKPb57eEw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 02:00:59AM +0200, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 07/09/2016 05:42 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>> >On 30 June 2016 at 03:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>> >>>On 06/24/2016 01:31 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>> >>>>Seems there's a small error in the upgrade script for citext for 1.1
>> >>>>to 1.2 which will cause min(citext) not to be parallel enabled.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>max(citext)'s combinefunc is first set incorrectly, but then updated
>> >>>>to the correct value. I assume it was meant to set the combine
>> >>>>function for min(citext) instead.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Fix attached. I've assumed that because we're still in beta that we
>> >>>>can get away with this fix rather than making a 1.3 version to fix the
>> >>>>issue.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yes, this is indeed a bug.
>> >>
>> >>Since we've already released beta2, I think we need to do a whole new
>> >>extension version. We treated beta1 as a sufficiently-significant
>> >>event to mandate a version bump, so we should do the same here.
>> >
>> >Ok, good point. Patch attached.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I tested the patch and it looks good.
>
> [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Robert,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
> efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.

Committed the patch.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-07-26 20:11:50 Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-07-26 19:35:43 Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types