Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>> Any thoughts on whether 0001a and 0001b ought to be backpatched? I'm
>>> thinking not given the lack of past complaints but it might make sense
>>> to do.
>>
>> I think 0001a absolutely needs to be, because it is fixing what is really
>> an ABI violation: sepgsql_needs_fmgr_hook is supposed to return our notion
>> of bool, but as things stand it's returning _Bool (which is why the
>> compiler is complaining). Now we might get away with that on most
>> hardware, but on platforms where those are different widths, it's possible
>> to imagine function-return conventions that would make it fail.
>>
>> 0001b seems to only be needed for compilers that aren't smart enough
>> to see that tclass won't be referenced for RELKIND_INDEX, so it's
>> just cosmetic.
>
> Ok, committed/pushed that way.
>
> I found some missing bits in the 0002 patch -- new version attached.
> Will wait on new regression tests before committing, but I expect we'll
> have those by end of today and be able to commit the rest tomorrow.

Attached are the regression test updates for partitioned tables.

Thanks,
--
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com