Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
Date: 2012-01-26 13:23:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed
>> that this commit broke the buildfarm?
> Thanks for reporting the problem.  This arose because the new test case
> temporarily sets client_min_messages=DEBUG1.  The default buildfarm
> configuration sets log_statement=all in its postgresql.conf, so the client
> gets those log_statement lines.  I would fix this as attached, resetting the
> optional logging to defaults during the test cases in question.  Not
> delightful, but that's what we have to work with.

I'm just going to remove the test.  This is not very future-proof and
an ugly pattern if it gets copied to other places.  We need to work on
a more sensible way for ALTER TABLE to report what it did, but a
solution based on what GUCs the build-farm happens to set doesn't seem
like it's justified for the narrowness of the case we're testing here.
 Whether or not we allow this case to work without a rewrite is in
some sense arbitrary. There's no real reason it can't be done; rather,
we're just exercising restraint to minimize the risk of future bugs.
So I don't want to go to great lengths to test it.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Abhijit Menon-SenDate: 2012-01-26 13:30:26
Subject: Re: psql NUL record and field separator
Previous:From: Kohei KaiGaiDate: 2012-01-26 12:27:38
Subject: Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group