Codecov Report

Merging #89 into master will increase coverage by 0.09%. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/rum_ts_utils.c	`87.41% <ø> (+0.32%)`	:arrow_up:
src/rumvalidate.c	`81.60% <0.00%> (-5.68%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumvacuum.c	`40.20% <0.00%> (-4.60%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumbtree.c	`60.85% <0.00%> (-3.66%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumdatapage.c	`73.39% <0.00%> (-2.37%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumbulk.c	`93.51% <0.00%> (-1.33%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumsort.c	`61.19% <0.00%> (-0.77%)`	:arrow_down:
src/btree_rum.c	`96.77% <0.00%> (-0.55%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumentrypage.c	`83.16% <0.00%> (-0.27%)`	:arrow_down:
src/rumutil.c	`86.06% <0.00%> (-0.26%)`	:arrow_down:
... and 12 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update e2e2a9f...dc9b3d7. Read the comment docs.

ololobus commented 4 years ago

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

feld commented 4 years ago

Ok, I think this solves the conflict issue. Note, I see that there was a commit added to this MR by @feodor from the branch svace-fix commit b1c8e895308bdeb5454f975eeea60eec8b55e90b which I did not include. If that is something that should survive and be included in this MR please re-add it.

ololobus commented 4 years ago

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 :)

pashkinelfe commented 3 years ago

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

postgrespro / rum

Provide previous behavior of TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT via TS_EXEC_SKIP_NOT #89

Codecov Report