Re: Command Triggers, v16
От | Thom Brown |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Command Triggers, v16 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA-aLv6r7-RB+Gu_WZBV4L+a=c4Dy7iU=pX5f6YY9e4-wtSQvQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Command Triggers, v16 (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Command Triggers, v16
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 March 2012 08:45, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On Friday, March 16, 2012 09:30:58 AM Thom Brown wrote: >> On 16 March 2012 08:13, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:41:21 PM Thom Brown wrote: >> >> Looks like the ctas-on-command-triggers-01.patch patch needs re-basing. >> > >> > I can do that - but imo the other patch (not based on the command >> > triggers stuff) is the relevant for now as this patch ought to be >> > applied before command triggers. It doesn't seem to make too much sense >> > to rebase it frequently as long as the command triggers patch isn't >> > stable... >> > >> > Any reason you would prefer it being rebased? >> >> Using latest Git master without any additional patches, I can't get it to >> apply: >> >> Hunk #1 FAILED at 16. >> Hunk #2 succeeded at 22 (offset -1 lines). >> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file >> src/include/commands/tablecmds.h.rej > Did you read the paragraph above? Yes, but I don't think I'm clear on what you mean. Are you saying I should use ctas-01.patch instead of ctas-on-command-triggers-01.patch?If so, that patch results in me not being able to applyDimitri's command triggers patch. And I thought that patch doesn't actually cause triggers to fire on CTAS? Thom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: