-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
Provide previous behavior of TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT via TS_EXEC_SKIP_NOT #89
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #89 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 77.60% 77.70% +0.09% ========================================== Files 16 21 +5 Lines 5020 5998 +978 ========================================== + Hits 3896 4661 +765 - Misses 1124 1337 +213
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
b1c8e89 to
e2e2a9f
Compare
ololobus
commented
Sep 28, 2020
Hi @feld, could you please rebase your branch on top of the current master? in order we were able to check it again/ run tests and merge
This flag may not be needed at all. Please carefully verify. https://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org/msg14157.html
ololobus
commented
Sep 28, 2020
Thanks! It was not actually added by him to your branch, it happened because I have force-pushed master from our GitLab repo in order to synchronise these two repos. And this commit was only left in you branch. In short, you did everything right :)
RUM now uses a private version rum_ts_execute() and TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT is now defined in the right meaning for calls of rum_ts_execute(). Right usage of TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT is described in the comments in rum_ts_utils.c
Addresses #88
This flag may not be needed at all on >=130000. Please carefully verify.
https://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org/msg14157.html