Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. WITH TIES: number of rows is optional and defaults to one

  1. Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> — 2020-05-18T14:41:23Z

    The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the <fetch first quantity> to be
absent (implying 1).

We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo.

Patch attached.
-- 
Vik Fearing

  2. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2020-05-18T17:03:23Z

    On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote:

> The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the <fetch first quantity> to be
> absent (implying 1).
> 
> We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo.

Oops, yes.  I added a test.  Will get this pushed immediately after I
see beta1 produced.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  3. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> — 2020-05-18T19:27:26Z

    On 5/18/20 7:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote:
> 
>> The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the <fetch first quantity> to be
>> absent (implying 1).
>>
>> We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo.
> 
> Oops, yes.  I added a test.  Will get this pushed immediately after I
> see beta1 produced.

Thanks!
-- 
Vik Fearing

  4. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2020-05-18T23:30:32Z

    On 2020-May-18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> On 2020-May-18, Vik Fearing wrote:
> 
> > The syntax for FETCH FIRST allows the <fetch first quantity> to be
> > absent (implying 1).
> > 
> > We implement this correctly for ONLY, but WITH TIES didn't get the memo.
> 
> Oops, yes.  I added a test.  Will get this pushed immediately after I
> see beta1 produced.

Done.  Thanks!

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  5. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-05-19T02:36:34Z

    On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Done.  Thanks!

This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
means that it won't be included in it, right?
--
Michael

  6. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> — 2020-05-19T03:32:50Z

    On 5/19/20 4:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Done.  Thanks!
> 
> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
> means that it won't be included in it, right?

Correct.

I don't know why there was a delay, but it also doesn't bother me.
-- 
Vik Fearing

  7. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2020-05-19T03:42:17Z

    On 2020-May-19, Vik Fearing wrote:

> On 5/19/20 4:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
> > means that it won't be included in it, right?
> 
> Correct.

Right.

> I don't know why there was a delay, but it also doesn't bother me.

I didn't want to risk breaking the buildfarm at the last minute.  It'll
be there in beta2.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  8. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2020-05-19T04:41:39Z

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:30:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Done.  Thanks!

> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
> means that it won't be included in it, right?

Right.

			regards, tom lane

  9. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2020-05-19T06:20:29Z

    On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
>> means that it won't be included in it, right?
> 
> Right.

Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the version is tagged?  My
understanding is that we had better not commit anything on a branch
planned for release between the moment the version is stamped and the
moment the tag is pushed so as we have a couple of days to address any
complaints from -packagers.  Here, we are in a state where we have
between the stamp time and tag time an extra commit not related to a
packaging issue.  So, if it happens that we have an issue from
-packagers to address, then we would have to include c301c2e in the
beta1.  Looking at the patch committed, that's not much of an issue,
but I think that we had better avoid that.
--
Michael

  10. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2020-05-19T13:19:52Z

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:41:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>>> This has been committed just after beta1 has been stamped.  So it
>>> means that it won't be included in it, right?

>> Right.

> Still, wouldn't it be better to wait until the version is tagged?

Yeah, that would have been better per project protocol: if a tarball
re-wrap becomes necessary then it would be messy not to include this
change along with fixing whatever urgent bug there might be.

However, I thought the case for delaying this fix till post-wrap was kind
of thin anyway, so if that does happen I won't be too fussed about it.
Otherwise I would've said something earlier on this thread.

			regards, tom lane

  11. Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2020-05-19T15:39:08Z

    On 2020-May-19, Tom Lane wrote:

> Yeah, that would have been better per project protocol: if a tarball
> re-wrap becomes necessary then it would be messy not to include this
> change along with fixing whatever urgent bug there might be.
> 
> However, I thought the case for delaying this fix till post-wrap was kind
> of thin anyway, so if that does happen I won't be too fussed about it.
> Otherwise I would've said something earlier on this thread.

In the end, it's a judgement call.  In this case, my assessment was that
the risk was small enough that I could push after I saw the tarballs
announced.  In other cases I've judged differently and waited for
longer.  If the fix had been even simpler, I would have pushed it right
away, but my confidence with grammar changes is not as high as I would
like.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services