Page MenuHomePhabricator

Remove misleading reference to "search_documentfield" in documentation
Changes PlannedPublic

Authored by epriestley on May 23 2019, 5:00 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F18790797: D20550.id49025.diff
Wed, Oct 15, 6:51 PM
F18670877: D20550.diff
Sep 25 2025, 1:54 AM
F18653222: D20550.diff
Sep 21 2025, 11:42 AM
F18651452: D20550.diff
Sep 21 2025, 4:24 AM
F18570261: D20550.id49025.diff
Sep 10 2025, 3:18 AM
F18466662: D20550.diff
Sep 2 2025, 10:34 AM
F18370404: D20550.id49025.diff
Aug 28 2025, 3:40 AM
F18111843: D20550.diff
Aug 12 2025, 1:32 PM
Subscribers
None

Details

Summary

Depends on D20549. Ref T11741. I removed this table in D20549, but both versions are slightly misleading because we actually use two MyISAM tables: "search_docmentfield" and "conpherence_index".

I just separated this out and would plan to land it after "conpherence_index" is removed so there are zero misleading lies at that point.

Test Plan

Grep / reading.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP Phabricator
Branch
myisam2
Lint
Lint Passed
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 22899
Build 31412: Run Core Tests
Build 31411: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

This looks good, except as you said, we can't land it until after we remove conpherence_index as well. Should I just approve it now and let it hang around in your unlanded revisions?

I'll just hold on to it for now in case something weird comes up, not a big deal if this doesn't land at the earliest possible moment.