| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unnesting multirange data types |
| Date: | 2021-06-15 18:47:40 |
| Message-ID: | ff1b62df-af4d-e3e8-7cce-a2bdb9499891@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/15/21 1:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> On 2021-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this ought to be reverted and reviewed more carefully.
>> It seems to me that removing the cast-to-range[] is a sufficient fix,
>> and that we can do with only the unnest part for pg14; the casts can be
>> added in 15 (if at all). That would mean reverting only half the patch.
> Might be a reasonable solution. But right now I'm annoyed that the
> buildfarm is broken, and I'm also convinced that this didn't get
> adequate testing. I think "revert and reconsider" is the way
> forward for today.
>
>
(RMT hat on) That would be my inclination at this stage. The commit
message states that it's trivial, but it seems not to be, and I suspect
it should not have been done at this stage of the development cycle.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-06-15 18:48:19 | Re: [PATCH] Fix buffer not null terminated on (ecpg lib) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-06-15 18:46:26 | Re: unnesting multirange data types |