1. 07 May, 2014 4 commits
    • Jeff Davis's avatar
      Improve comment for tricky aspect of index-only scans. · 35c0cd3b
      Jeff Davis authored
      Index-only scans avoid taking a lock on the VM buffer, which would
      cause a lot of contention. To be correct, that requires some intricate
      assumptions that weren't completely documented in the previous
      comment.
      
      Reviewed by Robert Haas.
      35c0cd3b
    • Peter Eisentraut's avatar
      doc: Fix DocBook XML validity · 3a9d430a
      Peter Eisentraut authored
      The main problem is that DocBook SGML allows indexterm elements just
      about everywhere, but DocBook XML is stricter.  For example, this common
      pattern
      
          <varlistentry>
           <indexterm>...</indexterm>
           <term>...</term>
           ...
          </varlistentry>
      
      needs to be changed to something like
      
          <varlistentry>
           <term>...<indexterm>...</indexterm></term>
           ...
          </varlistentry>
      
      See also bb4eefe7.
      
      There is currently nothing in the build system that enforces that things
      stay valid, because that requires additional tools and will receive
      separate consideration.
      3a9d430a
    • Bruce Momjian's avatar
      With ecpg exclusion removed, re-run pgindent for 9.4 · 84288a86
      Bruce Momjian authored
      Report by Tom Lane
      84288a86
    • Bruce Momjian's avatar
      Remove pgindent ecpg exclusion pattern · 9516668e
      Bruce Momjian authored
      Report by Tom Lane
      9516668e
  2. 06 May, 2014 17 commits
  3. 05 May, 2014 15 commits
  4. 04 May, 2014 2 commits
  5. 02 May, 2014 2 commits
    • Peter Eisentraut's avatar
    • Tom Lane's avatar
      Fix yet another corner case in dumping rules/views with USING clauses. · 91e16b98
      Tom Lane authored
      ruleutils.c tries to cope with additions/deletions/renamings of columns in
      tables referenced by views, by means of adding machine-generated aliases to
      the printed form of a view when needed to preserve the original semantics.
      A recent blog post by Marko Tiikkaja pointed out a case I'd missed though:
      if one input of a join with USING is itself a join, there is nothing to
      stop the user from adding a column of the same name as the USING column to
      whichever side of the sub-join didn't provide the USING column.  And then
      there'll be an error when the view is re-parsed, since now the sub-join
      exposes two columns matching the USING specification.  We were catching a
      lot of related cases, but not this one, so add some logic to cope with it.
      
      Back-patch to 9.3, which is the first release that makes any serious
      attempt to cope with such cases (cf commit 2ffa740b and follow-ons).
      91e16b98