Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Moser <pitiz29a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anton Dignös <anton(dot)dignoes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types
Date: 2019-07-01 11:44:31
Message-ID: CA+hUKGL2UZSwdZRQ6O7sLXN_gWgr-_VaztBfj_GH+WCAWknMfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:12 AM Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I start looking at the patch, there is a couple of problems with the patch. The first one is the OID conflict, which I fixed on my machine. The second problem is assertion failure. I think you have not compiled the PostgreSQL code with the assertion.

Hi Peter,

Looks like there was some good feedback for this WIP project last time
around. It's currently in "Needs Review" status in the July
Commitfest. To encourage more review and see some automated compile
and test results, could we please have a fresh rebase? The earlier
patches no longer apply.

Thanks,

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-07-01 11:52:13 Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binary reloptions representation for each relation kind instead
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2019-07-01 11:34:34 Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown)