Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
От | David Steele |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization |
Дата | |
Msg-id | be239334-8570-fc17-d32d-ffcb39923b58@pgmasters.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Konstantin, On 1/12/18 7:53 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > > > On 12.01.2018 03:40, Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> >> wrote: >>> * Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru) wrote: >>>> Updated version of the patch is attached. >>> This patch appears to apply with just a bit of fuzz and make check >>> passes, so I'm not sure why this is currently marked as 'Waiting for >>> author'. >>> >>> I've updated it to be 'Needs review'. If that's incorrect, feel free to >>> change it back with an explanation. >> Hi Konstantin, >> >> /home/travis/build/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/src/backend/tcop/postgres.c:5249: >> >> undefined reference to `PortalGetHeapMemory' >> >> That's because commit 0f7c49e85518dd846ccd0a044d49a922b9132983 killed >> PortalGetHeapMemory. Looks like it needs to be replaced with >> portal->portalContext. >> > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you very much for reporting the problem. > Rebased version of the patch is attached. This patch has received no review or comments since last May and appears too complex and invasive for the final CF of PG11. I don't think it makes sense to keep pushing a patch through CFs when it is not getting reviewed. I'm planning to mark this as Returned with Feedback unless there are solid arguments to the contrary. Thanks, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: