Thread: foreign key from array element
Hello the list, recently I'm cooking a database for an application, that I feel is best implemented with tables containing arrays. I have found some related info here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01356.php although the initial advice in that thread was: not to use arrays and: "learning database best practice". the thread eventually went into accepting this for implementation: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01341.php Does anyone know if the implementation actually happened since? In which version? How does the syntax loook like? -R
On 09/17/2012 04:46 PM, Rafal Pietrak wrote: > Hello the list, > > recently I'm cooking a database for an application, that I feel is best > implemented with tables containing arrays. > > I have found some related info here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01356.php > > although the initial advice in that thread was: not to use arrays and: > "learning database best practice". > > the thread eventually went into accepting this for implementation: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01341.php > > Does anyone know if the implementation actually happened since? In which > version? How does the syntax loook like? There was some quite recent discussion on ELEMENT foreign keys on the -hackers list. Try searching pgsql-hackers for ELEMENT foreign key. See: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=775 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=900 and the linked discussions. -- Craig Ringer
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 19:58 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 09/17/2012 04:46 PM, Rafal Pietrak wrote: [--------------] > There was some quite recent discussion on ELEMENT foreign keys on the > -hackers list. Try searching pgsql-hackers for ELEMENT foreign key. > > See: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=775 > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=900 > Thenx. Still, I cannot find it in the v9.2 release notes. Didn't the patch make it to the release, or I'm just looking in wrong places ( http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/release-9-2.html )? -R
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 19:58 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 09/17/2012 04:46 PM, Rafal Pietrak wrote: > [--------------] >> There was some quite recent discussion on ELEMENT foreign keys on the >> -hackers list. Try searching pgsql-hackers for ELEMENT foreign key. >> >> See: >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=775 >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=900 >> > Thenx. > > Still, I cannot find it in the v9.2 release notes. Didn't the patch make > it to the release, or I'm just looking in wrong places > ( http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/release-9-2.html )? It appears to be awaiting review, so the earliest possible release to contain would be 9.3. My entirely arbitrary (and likely incorrect!) estimation puts at about 80% chance of making 9.3, 10% chance off some later release, and 10% chance of rejection or getting dropped. merlin
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 14:31 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 19:58 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> On 09/17/2012 04:46 PM, Rafal Pietrak wrote: > > [--------------] > >> There was some quite recent discussion on ELEMENT foreign keys on the > >> -hackers list. Try searching pgsql-hackers for ELEMENT foreign key. [------------] > It appears to be awaiting review, so the earliest possible release to > contain would be 9.3. My entirely arbitrary (and likely incorrect!) > estimation puts at about 80% chance of making 9.3, 10% chance off some > later release, and 10% chance of rejection or getting dropped. I hope it'll not end up in that 10% bin. Who can review that patch? -R
Rafal Pietrak wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 14:31 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 19:58 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > >> On 09/17/2012 04:46 PM, Rafal Pietrak wrote: > > > [--------------] > > >> There was some quite recent discussion on ELEMENT foreign keys on the > > >> -hackers list. Try searching pgsql-hackers for ELEMENT foreign key. > [------------] > > It appears to be awaiting review, so the earliest possible release to > > contain would be 9.3. My entirely arbitrary (and likely incorrect!) > > estimation puts at about 80% chance of making 9.3, 10% chance off some > > later release, and 10% chance of rejection or getting dropped. > I hope it'll not end up in that 10% bin. > > Who can review that patch? You :^) The list of patches for the commitfest is here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=15 There is no reviewer for "Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys" yet. Here is information about what is required: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch Remember that even a review that does not cover everything is valuable. Yours, Laurenz Albe
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:
You :^)
The list of patches for the commitfest is here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=15
There is no reviewer for "Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys" yet.
Silly question perhaps better saved for the review process but what does that buy us that many<->many mapping tables don't? Are there cases where doing this with a constraint trigger is already preferable to using extra tables?
Best wishes,
Chris Travers
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 09:37 +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Rafal Pietrak wrote: [------------------] > > > > Who can review that patch? > > You :^) ;7 OK. (still smiling a little) [---------------] > Here is information about what is required: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch > I did have a look, and feel slightly encouraged reading: "Many people feel that they're not qualified"; yes, that's me all right. Serously, I will try to do by best ... by the weekend, when I get some spare time. > Remember that even a review that does not cover everything > is valuable. ... and obviously this will be partial review - it's going to be my first one. I hope it'll suffice. And if anyone have more "freshmen" advices handy, I'll be hapy to get them now. -R
Hi Rafal, Il 18/09/12 13:00, Rafal Pietrak ha scritto: > I did have a look, and feel slightly encouraged reading: "Many people > feel that they're not qualified"; yes, that's me all right. Serously, > I will try to do by best ... by the weekend, when I get some spare time. It is such a coincidence that yesterday I had started to write this article (http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-9-3-development-array-element-foreign-keys/) about this feature for 9.3 and this morning I noticed your message. It would be great if you could at least try the patch as a user and give feedback. Thank you. Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
Hi, On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:12 +0200, Gabriele Bartolini wrote: > Hi Rafal, [------------] > > It is such a coincidence that yesterday I had started to write this > article > (http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-9-3-development-array-element-foreign-keys/) > about this feature for 9.3 and this morning I noticed your message. > > It would be great if you could at least try the patch as a user and give > feedback. OK. I tried to setup things for the weekend: 1. You say in that article, that the patch is prepared for v9.3, 2. but within the sources repository (http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/), out of the most recent releases, I can only see release v9.2. 3. so I tried to apply the patches to v9.2: -------------------------- $ bzcat Array-ELEMENT-foreign-key-v1.patch.bz2 >array-elem-fk-init.patch $ tar -xjf postgresql-9.2.0.tar.bz2 $ cd postgresql-9.2.0 $ patch -p1 <../array-elem-fk-init.patch patching file doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml Hunk #1 succeeded at 2036 (offset -87 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 2069 (offset -87 lines). patching file doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml Hunk #1 succeeded at 866 (offset -11 lines). patching file doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml Hunk #5 FAILED at 671. Hunk #6 succeeded at 676 (offset -4 lines). Hunk #7 FAILED at 693. .... -------------------------- neither of the two patches listed by (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=15) worked cleanly - with the initial patch having less FAILS then the refreshed one. 4. So I tried to locate v9.3 sources harder; I looked into the "Developers" tab of the main website, but there is just mention of alpla/beta ... pointing to wiki, without links to the sources. 5. where do I get current-v9.3 from? Apparently I'll need a little help here. -R PS: things like location of the source-tree which is the base for the listed patches may be obvious for the veterans, but I think, a link on the CommitFest page would be of great help for bypassers, and the first-timers like myself.
Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > where do I get current-v9.3 from? At this point 9.3 just means the HEAD of the master branch of the git repository, which is where development for the next major release of software is always done. For details of the public git repository see: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=summary If you want to download the daily snapshot, you can find it here: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/snapshot/dev/ -Kevin
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:38 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: > > where do I get current-v9.3 from? > > At this point 9.3 just means the HEAD of the master branch of the > git repository, which is where development for the next major > release of software is always done. For details of the public git > repository see: > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=summary > Oh. this is unexpected: 1. Got it by "git clone", the patch went-in cleanly, 2. "./configure" run just fine: ---------------- . . #define MEMSET_LOOP_LIMIT 1024 #define PG_VERSION_STR "PostgreSQL 9.3devel on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc-4.4.real (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5, 32-bit" #define PG_VERSION_NUM 90300 configure: exit 0 ---------------- 3. But then make fails: ----------------------- postmaster/postmaster.o: In function `PostmasterMain':^M postmaster.c:(.text+0x4bc8): undefined reference to `optreset'^M tcop/postgres.o: In function `process_postgres_switches':^M postgres.c:(.text+0x1422): undefined reference to `optreset'^M utils/misc/ps_status.o: In function `set_ps_display':^M ps_status.c:(.text+0xd4): undefined reference to `setproctitle'^M collect2: ld returned 1 exit status^M make[2]: *** [postgres] Error 1^M make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/rafal/work/postgresql/src/backend'^M make[1]: *** [all-backend-recurse] Error 2^M make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rafal/work/postgresql/src'^M make: *** [all-src-recurse] Error 2^M ----------------------- which is interesting, because: ----------------------- configure:22311: checking for optreset configure:22337: gcc -o conftest -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -D_GNU_SOURCE conftest.c -lz -ledit -lcrypt -ldl -lm >&5 configure:22344: $? = 0 configure:22364: result: yes ---------------------- while "setproctitle" was used despite being detected as missing: ---------------------- configure:7627: checking for library containing setproctitle configure:7668: gcc -o conftest -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -D_GNU_SOURCE conftest.c -lm >&5 /tmp/ccQn02qg.o: In function `main': conftest.c:(.text+0x7): undefined reference to `setproctitle' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status configure:7675: $? = 1 ------------------------- -R
Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> writes: > postmaster/postmaster.o: In function `PostmasterMain':^M > postmaster.c:(.text+0x4bc8): undefined reference to `optreset'^M > tcop/postgres.o: In function `process_postgres_switches':^M > postgres.c:(.text+0x1422): undefined reference to `optreset'^M > utils/misc/ps_status.o: In function `set_ps_display':^M > ps_status.c:(.text+0xd4): undefined reference to `setproctitle'^M > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status^M > make[2]: *** [postgres] Error 1^M We've heard of this happening as a result of libedit pulling in libbsd, which provides (broken) versions of these symbols and thus confuses configure into thinking they're present. The "-ledit" in your link line suggests that you are linking to libedit, but the rest of that is just guesswork. I'd suggest installing readline to see if the problem goes away. Here's a previous report: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-11/msg00790.php regards, tom lane
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@2ndquadrant.it> wrote:
Hi Rafal,
Il 18/09/12 13:00, Rafal Pietrak ha scritto:It is such a coincidence that yesterday I had started to write this article (http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-9-3-development-array-element-foreign-keys/) about this feature for 9.3 and this morning I noticed your message.I did have a look, and feel slightly encouraged reading: "Many people feel that they're not qualified"; yes, that's me all right. Serously, I will try to do by best ... by the weekend, when I get some spare time.
It would be great if you could at least try the patch as a user and give feedback.
Now that I have had a chance to digest the blog post, I want to offer some feedback as someone who typically pushes the boundaries a bit when it comes to object-relational features in PostgreSQL (and in fact I am still looking at building an object-oriented API for the database into the LedgerSMB PostgreSQL schema, although storage will be more relational), in the question of "do we want this?" My answer is a cautious "yes."
My answer is cautious because I think that attempts to help developers think in objects all the way down will always end in tears. You can see my recent blog posting about nested storage gotchas (and this is a nested storage design feature btw) at http://ledgersmbdev.blogspot.com/2012/09/or-modelling-part-5-nested-data.html and I would therefore hope people aren't using this feature frequently and only saving it for the (relatively rare) cases where it is appropriate.
The two big issues are that contention issues are far easier to solve for inserts than updates, and that if there is any real separation of concerns, then objects in the database are just different than they are in the application (and in fact I think the LSP gets turned on its head in the database). If you are trading inserts for updates, you are trading simplicity in mapping your application for additional lock contention. It isn't always obvious at the start of a project whether or not these will ever become issues, but they may be painful to fix down the road. Additionally select performance is not necessarily well optimized for this, and you may have issues with being able to sufficiently index your array so that it is useful in the sorts of queries you want to do. This may force joins into bad orders, and may cause bad plans down the road.
.The second point is that if we see the database as modelling information, while the application models behavior (this avoids nasty issues of mixing transactional and non-transactional workloads and separates concerns) then basic principles of object-oriented design end up having very different implications. For example, "a square is-a rectangle" poses no LSP issues regarding information modelling but is an LSP violation regarding behavior modelling. Every calculation you can do on a rectangle you can do on a square, but everything not everything you can do to a rectangle without making it other than a rectangle can be done to a square. So I think that when you get into this, you will find that there are a lot of hidden gotchas in assuming a simple equivalence between application and database classes.
So those are the cautions and why I don't think a feature like this is suitable for routine usage, but truth be told a lot of the object-relational features are definitely not for routine usage and make a mess of things if people use them just because they can. I use table inheritance and I totally understand a lot of people's hostility towards this feature. Again, anytime you break 1NF you should probably have a really good reason. I don't think this changes here.
However, after thinking about the feature overnight, I can see a number of use cases for it, ranging from recording something like race results (where update contention is definitionally not an issue because the record of an event aren't supposed to change) to sanity checks in materialized views, and there are probably additional uses that are not apparent yet. So yes, I certainly think I'd like to see this make it in.
Additionally I guess I am also somewhat eager to see more people really grapple with the current rough edges in RI and object-relational modelling. If this highlights what PostgreSQL can do, I am even more for it. If this helps get people involved, even better. Finally, this may prove to be a useful springboard towards even more capable designs regarding nested storage down the road (though this has intimidating gotchas in actual use too). For example, if this were at some point combined with an ability to look inside composite types to find foreign keys (something like FOREIGN KEY ((country_ref).country_id) REFERENCES country (id) or the like), then row store functionality might be even more useful in terms of an intermediate insert format in some cases.
So yeah, as far as the feature goes, as documented, I haven't tried it fully yet (expect to do so this weekend), but it looks useful at least in some cases.
Best Wishes,
Chris Ttravers
Ciao Rafal, You can download the refreshed version of the patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1347983571.11539.14.camel@greygoo.devise-it.lan > 5. where do I get current-v9.3 from? git clone git://git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git cd postgresql git checkout -b aefk bzcat Array-ELEMENT-foreign-key-v1-refreshed.patch.bz2 | patch -p1 Then regular configure and make procedures (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/install-procedure.html) Useful link too: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ Hope this helps. Thanks, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support Gabriele.Bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it - www.2ndQuadrant.it
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 18:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> writes: > > postmaster/postmaster.o: In function `PostmasterMain':^M > > postmaster.c:(.text+0x4bc8): undefined reference to `optreset'^M > > tcop/postgres.o: In function `process_postgres_switches':^M > > postgres.c:(.text+0x1422): undefined reference to `optreset'^M > > utils/misc/ps_status.o: In function `set_ps_display':^M > > ps_status.c:(.text+0xd4): undefined reference to `setproctitle'^M > > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status^M > > make[2]: *** [postgres] Error 1^M > > We've heard of this happening as a result of libedit pulling in libbsd, > which provides (broken) versions of these symbols and thus confuses > configure into thinking they're present. The "-ledit" in your link line > suggests that you are linking to libedit, but the rest of that is just > guesswork. I'd suggest installing readline to see if the problem goes > away. > > Here's a previous report: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-11/msg00790.php > > regards, tom lane Thenx. The readline trail worked for me too, but in a somewhat different way (I haven't read the full thread before trying): 1. in my case: this is debian-squeeze, not ubuntu; but this should not really matter. 2. initially, I've pulled all the build dependencies for postgresql-8.4, as they are in debian source package. This installed libedit-dev, and consequently my initial failure. 3. so after having this libedit/readline hint, I've purged libedit-dev, and installed readline6-dev instead (didn't have to build it from sources). 4. this didn't help 5. but running ./configure --with-readline did. and the build ended up cleanly. What puzzles me, is that in "configure.in:675", the selection of libedit v.s. readline is commented with a timemark dated 2004 - since then things should have changed in those libs, shouldn't they? And then, the comment proceeds a test which is only taken on win32 architecture, but then follows libedit preference for everybody. Was this libedit/readline issue just the case for win32? and is it still valid? -R
Hi Chris,
thank you very much for taking the time to read the article and get
into the features proposed with our patch.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:17:56 -0700, Chris Travers
<chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> So those are the cautions and why I don't think a feature like this
> is suitable for routine usage, but truth be told a lot of the
> object-relational features are definitely not for routine usage and
> make a mess of things if people use them just because they can. I
> use table inheritance and I totally understand a lot of people's
> hostility towards this feature. Again, anytime you break 1NF you
> should probably have a really good reason. I don't think this
> changes here.
I agree with you that this feature won't (and probably shouldn't)
change modelling approaches in the majority of the cases. But will bring
new opportunities, therefore make PostgreSQL even more versatile. I
still believe that in some cases - not just indistinctively -
aggregation in object oriented modelling can definitely be logically
modelled using arrays, with referential integrity guaranteed by this
feature.
> However, after thinking about the feature overnight, I can see a
> number of use cases for it, ranging from recording something like
> race
> results (where update contention is definitionally not an issue
> because the record of an event aren't supposed to change) to sanity
> checks in materialized views, and there are probably additional uses
> that are not apparent yet.
I totally agree with you. This is exactly what we (as a community) need
to do now as far as this feature is concerned. We need to have a larger
use base and from there fully understand what the community needs. For
instance, for 9.2 we had already developed actions on update and delete
operations - assuming generic use cases. We have preferred for now to
take out that part and start with a simpler patch where actions are
forbidden. Through community feedback we found a name for the feature
that was commonly accepted (we had called them EACH FOREIGN KEYS last
year), and came up with an easy to understand syntax (and a better
naming). It was important not to go too far down an unexplored
territory. :)
> So yeah, as far as the feature goes, as documented, I haven't tried
> it fully yet (expect to do so this weekend), but it looks useful at
> least in some cases.
Thank you. That's really much appreciated.
Cheers,
Gabriel
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Gabriele.Bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it - www.2ndQuadrant.it
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Gabriele Bartolini <Gabriele.Bartolini@2ndquadrant.it> wrote:
Hi Chris,
thank you very much for taking the time to read the article and get into the features proposed with our patch.
You are welcome. Also in case there is ambiguity, the feature I was describing animosity towards was table inheritance. I have seen people advocate getting rid of the feature altogether but it is really useful for a set of problems out there. The problem of course is that in its current form it is a bit of a dangerous feature.
I agree with you that this feature won't (and probably shouldn't) change modelling approaches in the majority of the cases. But will bring new opportunities, therefore make PostgreSQL even more versatile. I still believe that in some cases - not just indistinctively - aggregation in object oriented modelling can definitely be logically modelled using arrays, with referential integrity guaranteed by this feature.
BTW, I don't know if you have seen the series I have been doing on Object-Relational modelling in PostgreSQL but if you haven't, http://ledgersmbdev.blogspot.com/ (right now there are 9 posts up with an epilogue coming).
I cover a lot of "dangerous" features--- composite types in columns, non-1NF designs, table inheritance. Particularly the nested storage post might be interesting in terms of both uses and misuses of this proposed feature.
In fact it occurs to me that the main thing it buys is an ability to do subset constraints on the foreign key set gracefully, for example, ensuring that there are between 5 and 10 foreign keys referenced in a specific case or the like.
I totally agree with you. This is exactly what we (as a community) need to do now as far as this feature is concerned. We need to have a larger use base and from there fully understand what the community needs. For instance, for 9.2 we had already developed actions on update and delete operations - assuming generic use cases. We have preferred for now to take out that part and start with a simpler patch where actions are forbidden. Through community feedback we found a name for the feature that was commonly accepted (we had called them EACH FOREIGN KEYS last year), and came up with an easy to understand syntax (and a better naming). It was important not to go too far down an unexplored territory. :)However, after thinking about the feature overnight, I can see a
number of use cases for it, ranging from recording something like race
results (where update contention is definitionally not an issue
because the record of an event aren't supposed to change) to sanity
checks in materialized views, and there are probably additional uses
that are not apparent yet.
I think the problem for the cascade and set null operations is determining the behavior to be defined. would ON DELETE CASCADE delete the value from the array or would it delete the whole row? What about ON DELETE SET NULL? Do we change the value in the array to NULL or just remove it from the array? So I think for now that's sane.
I think in terms of community, the object-relational features do need more exposure, and more attention generally. Part of the reason I started blogging about them was to bring more attention to them, and try to help get more exposure to the current costs and benefits of using them. If people are pushing the boundaries a bit more, I think a lot of things will get improved upon.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 09:37 +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Rafal Pietrak wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 14:31 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@zorro.isa-geek.com> wrote: [--------] > > > > Who can review that patch? > > You :^) > I did what I could - the review is on the hackers list. [------------] > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch > > Remember that even a review that does not cover everything > is valuable. Should I do anything else to finilize this review, like "linking" it to the pending patch? somehow? -R
Hi Rafal, Il 24/09/12 07:54, Rafal Pietrak ha scritto: > I did what I could - the review is on the hackers list. Thanks! That's much appreciated. > Should I do anything else to finilize this review, like "linking" it > to the pending patch? somehow? -R You should update the commitfest.postgresql.org website. For now, I have updated that for you and the patch now reports you as a reviewer and links the message to the patch. Here it is: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=900 Cheers, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it