Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPmGK14_wG5L9wmrCNyO2jEhpr7BDveOn4hK0TaQTboZsM-r_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:17 AM Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> Seems to just need an update of the expected-file to account for test > >>> cases added recently. (I take no position on whether the new results > >>> are desirable; some of these might be breaking the intent of the case. > >>> But this should quiet the cfbot anyway.) > > >> The test case was added by commit "Add support for asynchronous execution" > >> "27e1f14563cf982f1f4d71e21ef247866662a052" by Etsuro Fujita. He can comment > >> whether the new results are desirable or not. > > > The new results aren't what I intended. I'll update the patch to > > avoid that by modifying the original test cases properly, if there are > > no objections. > > Please follow up on that sometime? Will do in this commitfest. > In the meantime, here is a rebase > over aa769f80e and 2dc53fe2a, to placate the cfbot. Thanks for the rebase! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: