Prev: Need a Promotion for a good life. alamode adenia absonant
Next: [HACKERS] PostGIS vs. PGXS in 9.0beta3
From: Andres Freund on 4 Aug 2010 09:02
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 14:09:51 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yep. I believe Boxuan is using git in a simplistic way, doing just "git
> diff" to create patches. For adding new files, you need to do "git add
> <filename>", but note that this adds the new file to "staging area". To
> view all changes in the staging area, use "git diff --cached", but that
> won't show any modifications to existing files that you haven't also
> "git add"ed. So to generate a patch you need to "git add" all modified
> and added files ("git add -u" will add all modified files
> automatically), and then use "git diff --cached" to generate the diff.
Or use git add --intent--to-add (or -N). That adds the file but not the actual
changes.

Andres

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on 4 Aug 2010 10:36
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my
> rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
>
> In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
> replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type
> from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from
> the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation.
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules

It seems sensible to use the test files that I wrote for MERGE in 2008,
published to -hackers at that time.

The tests were a complete output from a MERGE test script.

Developing new tests when we already have code makes little sense, plus
its a good way of objectively testing that the spec has been implemented
correctly in these patches.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Simon Riggs on 4 Aug 2010 11:26
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my
> > rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
> >
> > In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
> > replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type
> > from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from
> > the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation.
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules
>
> It seems sensible to use the test files that I wrote for MERGE in 2008,
> published to -hackers at that time.

Even more sensible for me to include it as a patch, with the files in
the right places and the schedules updated.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Need a Promotion for a good life. alamode adenia absonant
Next: [HACKERS] PostGIS vs. PGXS in 9.0beta3