Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa2Ng37heGyn3JhQc5vZQWnhbj7TettL=25b308sjK5Sw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-committers
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
>> CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])
>
> Buildfarm members that don't like // comments are dying on this bit
> in tuplesort.c:
>
>         state->nKeys = IndexRelationGetNumberOfKeyAttributes(indexRel); //FIXME
>
> I assume that the problem here is larger than just failure to adhere to
> C89 comment style.  Was this patch really ready to commit?  I'm not very
> happy that such a large patch went from "Needs review" to "Committed" in
> the blink of an eye on the very last commitfest day ... and artifacts like
> this aren't doing anything to increase my confidence in it.

+1.  I wonder if this should be reverted entirely.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...])