Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Rel8 to work with Opaleye's #586 #305

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 9, 2024

Conversation

shane-circuithub
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Comment on lines -50 to +59
countRows = aggregate countStar
countRows = aggregate countStar . (true <$)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm curious about why this change is needed. What's going on here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It makes me concerned that there's some implication of the corresponding Opaleye change that I'm not aware of.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, maybe it's just to get a Table Expr i instance? If so then that's fine. (I was worried that there was some subtlety about the SQL that we generate, and this change was to avoid a crashing query.)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I imagine it's to avoid propagating that constraint

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great, that's reassuring. If so then there's nothing I don't understand and my PR is ready to go Opaleye-side. @duairc, could you please confirm?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apologies for the delay, but yes I can confirm that this is just to get a Table Expr instance.

@shane-circuithub shane-circuithub merged commit ca615ee into master Feb 9, 2024
2 checks passed
@shane-circuithub shane-circuithub deleted the aggregate-unpackspec branch February 9, 2024 15:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants