{"push_id":753072835,"size":4,"distinct_size":4,"ref":"refs/heads/REL9_5_STABLE","head":"2949987d37cf8d13ca0582610c17a4ddbc246193","before":"479cb1e420c40d78b49535c0ceeaa5f65c7d6797","commits":[{"sha":"64ac985b5946de4bf7cae21383508477023e0688","author":{"email":"9f4ca770b638615ac5c3e0d2da16b77c80c2f2c6@hagander.net","name":"Magnus Hagander"},"message":"Fix typo in LDAP example\n\nReported by William Meitzen","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sunny256/postgres/commits/64ac985b5946de4bf7cae21383508477023e0688"},{"sha":"6e03d476c93458203c1c0307abaf9068d5793aeb","author":{"email":"ffeaa947aef224da9ba99b6a18bdd74288df0e3e@sss.pgh.pa.us","name":"Tom Lane"},"message":"Remove gram.y's precedence declaration for OVERLAPS.\n\nThe allowed syntax for OVERLAPS, viz \"row OVERLAPS row\", is sufficiently\nconstrained that we don't actually need a precedence declaration for\nOVERLAPS; indeed removing this declaration does not change the generated\ngram.c file at all.  Let's remove it to avoid confusion about whether\nOVERLAPS has precedence or not.  If we ever generalize what we allow for\nOVERLAPS, we might need to put back a precedence declaration for it,\nbut we might want some other level than what it has today --- and leaving\nthe declaration there would just risk confusion about whether that would\nbe an incompatible change.\n\nLikewise, remove OVERLAPS from the documentation's precedence table.\n\nPer discussion with Noah Misch.  Back-patch to 9.5 where we hacked up some\nnearby precedence decisions.","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sunny256/postgres/commits/6e03d476c93458203c1c0307abaf9068d5793aeb"},{"sha":"86baf3c24dfb6f351d0a1653552d0973ad7c4e3d","author":{"email":"883768b6dd2c42aea0031b24be8a2da40fef4b64@anarazel.de","name":"Andres Freund"},"message":"Don't start to stream after pg_receivexlog --create-slot.\n\nImmediately starting to stream after --create-slot is inconvenient in a\nnumber of situations (e.g. when configuring a slot for use in\nrecovery.conf) and it's easy to just call pg_receivexlog twice in the\nrest of the cases.\n\nAuthor: Michael Paquier\nDiscussion: CAB7nPqQ9qEtuDiKY3OpNzHcz5iUA+DUX9FcN9K8GUkCZvG7+Ew@mail.gmail.com\nBackpatch: 9.5, where the option was introduced","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sunny256/postgres/commits/86baf3c24dfb6f351d0a1653552d0973ad7c4e3d"},{"sha":"2949987d37cf8d13ca0582610c17a4ddbc246193","author":{"email":"883768b6dd2c42aea0031b24be8a2da40fef4b64@anarazel.de","name":"Andres Freund"},"message":"Fix copy & paste mistake in pg_get_replication_slots().\n\nXLogRecPtr was compared with InvalidTransactionId instead of\nInvalidXLogRecPtr. As both are defined to the same value this doesn't\ncause any actual problems, but it's still wrong.\n\nBackpatch: 9.4-master, bug was introduced in 9.4","distinct":true,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sunny256/postgres/commits/2949987d37cf8d13ca0582610c17a4ddbc246193"}]}