Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I submitted two patch patches to fix the select_having test. The first patch addressed problems caused by
> > a machine dependency on the degree of accuracy of datetime. CVS is currently showing this first patch.
> >
> > The second patch was to fix my first patch. It has NOT been applied yet. The problem with he first
> > patch, which you are seeing now, is that the test case demonstrates another bug which has nothing to do
> > with having. It has to do with GROUPing by a function and the argument of the function not appearing
> > elsewhere in the target list. Weird! In any case the latest patch will fix the regression.
> >
> > BTW, I have also sent one other patch that I am waiting to see in CVS. These one is an interim AND/OR
> > memory exhaustion fix.
>
> Yes, I am behind on the patch applications. Marc probably stopped while
> I did my mega-cleanup, and I have been scratching my head on the
> platform failures. Hopefully one of us will get it soon.
> bug.
No rush, I can see you're synapses are all firing on this index bug. Just a reminder so it doesn't fall
through the cracks.
More important, am relieved (in advance) that you have found the problem in the index code.
Can I assume there will be a snapshot I can get tomorrow from my business location to try out on my AIX box? I
am anxious to know this is behind us.
Appreciation :)
