Re: [HACKERS] partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Mike Palmiotto
<mike.palmiotto@crunchydata.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2017 12:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.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.

Actually attached this time.
-- 
Mike Palmiotto
Software Engineer
Crunchy Data Solutions
https://crunchydata.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers