Re: unnesting multirange data types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unnesting multirange data types
Date: 2021-06-15 17:18:06
Message-ID: 427913.1623777486@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I did run "check-world", but it passed for me. Probably the same
> reason it passed for some buildfarm animals...

The only buildfarm animals that have passed since this went in
are the ones that don't run the pg_dump or pg_upgrade tests.

It looks to me like the proximate problem is that you should
have taught pg_dump to skip these new auto-generated functions.
However, I fail to see why we need auto-generated functions
for this at all. Couldn't we have done it with one polymorphic
function?

I think this ought to be reverted and reviewed more carefully.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-06-15 17:28:27 Re: unnesting multirange data types
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-06-15 17:11:36 Re: a path towards replacing GEQO with something better