Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQbpE-0007GD-SF for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:43:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQbpD-00065Y-96 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:43:39 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQbpD-00062R-2R for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:43:39 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQbpB-0007sG-0A for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:43:38 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 098JhWHY2622732; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:43:32 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation In-reply-to: References: ,<20201008162310.GA13054@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" message dated "Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:12:47 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2622730.1602186212.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:43:32 -0400 Message-ID: <2622731.1602186212@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" writes: >> I was hoping someone more experienced with this would comment, but >> seeing none, I will apply it in a day or two to all supported versions? >> Have you tested this output back to 9.5? > I hoped that as well. No, I tested down to 9.6 because the change happen= ed in 10. The patch assumes that parallel query is enabled, which is not true by default before v10, so it should certainly not be applied before v10 (at least not without significant revisions). regards, tom lane