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
F14042053: D20550.id49025.diff
Tue, Nov 12, 12:02 AM
F14041167: D20550.id.diff
Mon, Nov 11, 4:26 PM
F14041119: D20550.diff
Mon, Nov 11, 4:03 PM
F14018012: D20550.diff
Tue, Nov 5, 3:02 AM
F14003206: D20550.id49025.diff
Sat, Oct 26, 3:27 AM
F13993353: D20550.diff
Tue, Oct 22, 10:18 PM
F13976938: D20550.id.diff
Oct 18 2024, 4:24 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 11 2024, 2:43 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.