From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "variable not found in subplan target list" |
Date: | 2023-05-02 17:54:09 |
Message-ID: | 20230502175409.kcoirxczpdha26wt@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit,
On 2023-Mar-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the
> > notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1]
> > has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that
> > doesn't require hacking up the pruning code.
>
> Hmm, that's indeed tempting.
We have an open item about this, and I see no reason not to do it. I
checked, and putting things back is just a matter of reverting
589bb816499e and ec386948948, cleaning up some trivial pgindent-induced
conflicts, and bumping catversion once more. Would you like to do that
yourself, or do you prefer that I do it? Ideally, we'd do it before
beta1.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-05-02 20:29:45 | Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-05-02 17:49:47 | code cleanup for CREATE STATISTICS |