Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> I have plan to fix the above two bugs together. (in fact, I have
> already started coding in merge_v202 edition). My question is how
> should I make my update be consistent with yours. Is it possible for
> you to give me an edition that I can work on?
I just got this reconciled with HEAD again. There have been two changes
I made in the code you'll eventually want in your working copy:
1) Fix NIL/NULL confusion:
https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/commit/9013ba9e81490e3623add1b029760817021297c0
2) Update ExecMerge to accept and pass through an oldtuple value. This
is needed to make the code compatible with the PostgreSQL git HEAD after
the changes made in the 2009-09 CommitFest. Bit rot updates made:
https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/commit/be03bd201720f42a666f7e356ec8507c1357f502
I'm not sure if how I did (2) is correct for all cases, but at least the
code compiles again now and the server will start. Attached is an
updated patch that applies to HEAD as of right now, and that code has
been pushed to
https://github.com/greg2ndQuadrant/postgres/tree/merge-unstable with the
changes rebased to be the last two commits.
It fails "make installcheck" on my system. But as the initial diffs I
looked at relate to enums and such, I don't think that's a problem with
your patch. Will investigate further here with some of my own patches
I'm working on today. Hopefully this is enough to unblock what you were
looking for more details from me about.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD