On 04.07.23 14:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 8 May 2023, at 09:10, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.05.23 23:02, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>>> Thank you again for the review. Here is a patch with most of your feedback addressed. Sorry it has taken so long!
Thesepatches are rebased up to 1ab763fc22adc88e5d779817e7b42b25a9dd7c9e
>>> (May 3).
>>
>> Here are a few small fixup patches to get your patch set compiling cleanly.
>>
>> Also, it looks like the patches 0002, 0003, and 0004 are not split up correctly. 0002 contains tests using the FOR
PORTIONOF syntax introduced in 0003, and 0003 uses the function build_period_range() from 0004.
>
> These patches no longer apply without a new rebase. Should this patch be
> closed in while waiting for the prequisite of adding btree_gist to core
> mentioned upthread? I see no patch registered in the CF for this unless I'm
> missing sometihng.
I had talked to Paul about this offline a while ago. btree_gist to core
is no longer considered a prerequisite. But Paul was planning to
produce a new patch set that is arranged and sequenced a bit
differently. Apparently, that new version is not done yet, so it would
make sense to either close this entry as returned with feedback, or move
it to the next commit fest as waiting on author.
