Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c9c81296-9212-d247-b28b-b7810ee0a907@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior (Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/16/20 1:51 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:08 AM Anastasia Lubennikova > <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> >> On 01.12.2020 03:08, James Coleman wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:39 PM Tomas Vondra >>> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> I've pushed the 0001 part, i.e. the main fix. Not sure about the other >>>> parts (comments and moving the code back to postgres_fdw) yet. >>> I noticed the CF entry [1] got moved to the next CF; I'm thinking this >>> entry should be marked as committed since the fix for the initial bug >>> reported on this thread has been pushed. We have the parallel safety >>> issue outstanding, but there's a separate thread and patch for that, >>> so I'll make a new CF entry for that. >>> >>> I can mark it as committed, but I'm not sure how to "undo" (or if >>> that's desirable) the move to the next CF. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> James >>> >>> 1: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2754/ >>> >>> >> Oops... >> I must have rushed with this one, thank you for noticing. >> I don't see how to move it back either. I think it's fine to mark it as >> Committed where it is now. >> > > BTW, I still see this one as needs review > Hmm, not sure what was the plan, but I'll mark it as committed once I push the remaining patches (for parallel-safe checks, SRFs etc.) in a couple days. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: