| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - add \if support |
| Date: | 2018-01-09 13:46:24 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1801091403530.6718@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Dmitry,
>> What you are trying to do is the result of combining the pgbench-if patch
>> and the pgbench-more-ops-and-funcs patch.
>
> Oh, I see. I missed the first message about this patch, sorry. But for some
> reason I can't apply both patches (pgbench-more-ops-funcs-23.patch and
> pgbench-if-4.patch) in any order:
> Hunk #24 FAILED at 2824. [...]
Indeed, they interfere.
> Is there any other dependency I should apply?
No, the patches really conflict in minor ways. They are expected to be
reviewed independently. If/when one feature is committed, I('ll) update
the remaining patches so that they still work.
If I produce dependent patches ISTM that it makes a more complicated
review, so the patches are less likely to be reviewed and maybe finally
committed.
I just wanted to point out that the the features are more interestings
when combined than on their own.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2018-01-09 14:02:15 | Re: pgbench - add \if support |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-01-09 13:42:31 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench randomness initialization |