owner stringclasses 14
values | repo stringclasses 14
values | id int64 116k 4.61B | issue_number int32 1 181k | author stringlengths 1 39 | body stringlengths 1 262k | created_at timestamp[us]date 2000-06-06 02:40:44 2026-06-02 20:16:18 | updated_at timestamp[us]date 2000-06-06 02:40:44 2026-06-02 20:22:56 | reactions unknown | author_association stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
swiftlang | swift | 4,454,148,431 | 89,141 | gottesmm | The problem here is that for public/usableFromInline types we do not automatically infer Sendable since that is making an ABI decision that we want to be explicit. So you need to explicitly mark these as Sendable. | 2026-05-14T19:42:14 | 2026-05-14T19:42:14 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,377,618 | 88,775 | compnerd | Please test with following PRs:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/197237
@swift-ci please test Windows platform | 2026-05-14T22:52:40 | 2026-05-14T22:52:40 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,631,640 | 89,133 | heckj | I've got a small pile of questions to follow up with @ktoso that I built up today after setting up this PR, so more revisioning coming yet @NotTheNHK ;-) Thank you for your pro-active feedback on this!
I did a full local build of this and verified the symbol links are correctly functional. More next week... | 2026-05-14T23:45:47 | 2026-05-14T23:45:47 | {
"+1": 1
} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,702,128 | 88,465 | ktoso | I made a follow up issue about the wasm side of this -- https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/issues/89155 @MaxDesiatov there's a few things going on here with ~Copyable and async... I'm not sure what's intended to be supported here on wasm already? | 2026-05-15T03:45:32 | 2026-05-15T03:45:32 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,800,005 | 89,156 | j-hui | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-15T04:03:16 | 2026-05-15T04:03:16 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,459,404,573 | 89,165 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-15T11:35:53 | 2026-05-15T11:35:53 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,460,099,931 | 89,161 | tshortli | I think it would be worthwhile to also have a dedicated group per unnecessary effect but this is a reasonable start and we can nest those fine grained groups in later under this one. | 2026-05-15T13:21:06 | 2026-05-15T13:21:36 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,460,268,919 | 88,612 | mikeash | @swift-ci please test windows platform | 2026-05-15T13:45:07 | 2026-05-15T13:45:07 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,461,514,338 | 89,173 | eeckstein | There is already https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/89163 | 2026-05-15T16:31:20 | 2026-05-15T16:31:20 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,453,539,892 | 88,879 | atrick | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-14T18:25:04 | 2026-05-14T18:25:04 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,863,642 | 88,937 | gottesmm | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-15T00:43:45 | 2026-05-15T00:43:45 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,084,703 | 88,976 | kavon | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-15T01:29:32 | 2026-05-15T01:29:32 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,704,864 | 88,465 | ktoso | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-15T03:46:05 | 2026-05-15T03:46:05 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,459,478,112 | 89,039 | egorzhdan | @swift-ci please build toolchain Ubuntu 24.04 | 2026-05-15T11:47:53 | 2026-05-15T11:47:53 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,459,663,010 | 89,159 | AlexsanderDamaceno | @eeckstein hi, could you run tests and merge it if ok, as have not permission yet I think | 2026-05-15T12:16:08 | 2026-05-15T12:28:06 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,461,322,704 | 89,165 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-15T16:01:55 | 2026-05-15T16:01:55 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,461,405,890 | 89,075 | al45tair | @swift-ci Please test | 2026-05-15T16:14:37 | 2026-05-15T16:14:37 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,454,375,554 | 89,143 | akyrtzi | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-14T20:15:54 | 2026-05-14T20:15:54 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,299,981 | 89,147 | ktoso | This will clash with @hamishknight's https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/89126 so you folks might want to figure out which one to take | 2026-05-14T22:40:27 | 2026-05-14T22:40:27 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,502,758 | 89,032 | jckarter | https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/89116 should fix this. Let me know if you still see the problem once that makes it into a build. | 2026-05-14T23:15:19 | 2026-05-14T23:15:19 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,884,103 | 88,465 | ktoso | Okey so we can't just `internal import` without the rest of the files doing the same; let's do this separately. | 2026-05-15T04:23:03 | 2026-05-15T04:23:03 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,458,993,434 | 89,163 | finagolfin | @swift-ci test android | 2026-05-15T10:27:55 | 2026-05-15T10:27:55 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,459,404,017 | 89,165 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-15T11:35:49 | 2026-05-15T11:35:49 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,233,565 | 89,124 | broken-circle | Opened #89147. | 2026-05-14T22:27:28 | 2026-05-14T22:27:28 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,567,344 | 89,147 | broken-circle | @ktoso Thanks for the heads up! I just pushed an update that adds coverage for the missing-`try` case in a throwing context (the one #89126 addresses), so this PR now covers that case as well as the four unhandled contexts (default, rethrows function, non-exhaustive catch, defer body). I'm good with whichever direction... | 2026-05-14T23:29:57 | 2026-05-14T23:29:57 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,457,519,968 | 61,483 | AlexsanderDamaceno | @AnthonyLatsis could take a look at my pr for this bug ? | 2026-05-15T06:29:50 | 2026-05-15T06:29:50 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,453,481,454 | 89,070 | drexin | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-14T18:17:57 | 2026-05-14T18:17:57 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,455,378,373 | 89,147 | ktoso | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-14T22:52:46 | 2026-05-14T22:52:46 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,456,555,077 | 89,061 | xedin | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-15T03:10:59 | 2026-05-15T03:10:59 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,459,868,721 | 89,166 | susmonteiro | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-15T12:46:15 | 2026-05-15T12:46:15 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,460,775,346 | 89,159 | eeckstein | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-15T14:48:50 | 2026-05-15T14:48:50 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,460,814,969 | 89,068 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-15T14:53:38 | 2026-05-15T14:53:38 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,454,311,085 | 89,142 | xedin | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-14T20:07:03 | 2026-05-14T20:07:03 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,458,795,595 | 89,126 | hamishknight | @swift-ci please test Windows | 2026-05-15T09:55:20 | 2026-05-15T09:55:20 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,438,124 | 89,138 | augusto2112 | https://github.com/swiftlang/llvm-project/pull/12992
@swift-ci test macOS | 2026-05-18T14:00:22 | 2026-05-18T14:00:22 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,973,370 | 89,167 | slavapestov | FWIW the test failure was just an improperly-updated RUN: line in a fixed crasher test. https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/pull/89217 should address that once and for all... | 2026-05-18T15:04:44 | 2026-05-18T15:04:44 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,939,423 | 89,232 | tshortli | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T22:52:20 | 2026-05-18T22:52:20 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,484,254,472 | 89,237 | ktoso | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-19T03:57:09 | 2026-05-19T03:57:09 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,484,792,751 | 89,228 | atrick | Instead, we may completely remove the clause starting with `A memory access from an address that is not strict cannot have its address substituted with a strict address` and replace it with an explanation of why it's actually safe to do that when the types match | 2026-05-19T05:47:56 | 2026-05-19T05:47:56 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,486,590,693 | 89,212 | susmonteiro | @swift-ci please test windows | 2026-05-19T09:56:17 | 2026-05-19T09:56:17 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,486,826,855 | 88,914 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke benchmark | 2026-05-19T10:28:23 | 2026-05-19T10:28:23 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,867,900 | 89,217 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:51:44 | 2026-05-18T14:51:44 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,144,841 | 89,178 | Julioacarrettoni | **Edit:** Updated the issue with a shorter version of the reproduction code. | 2026-05-18T20:58:47 | 2026-05-18T20:58:47 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,689,138 | 89,229 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci build toolchain | 2026-05-18T22:11:02 | 2026-05-18T22:11:02 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,968,812 | 89,231 | jmschonfeld | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T22:58:05 | 2026-05-18T22:58:05 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,483,492,172 | 89,159 | AlexsanderDamaceno | @eeckstein @meg-gupta Hi, Could smoke again? There was one failing test case because the diagnostic message should be shown when `init?` is used in an inherited class because is overriding the constructor, I ran the tests locally, and they all pass now. | 2026-05-19T00:47:30 | 2026-05-19T03:45:36 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,485,034,033 | 89,237 | ktoso | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-19T06:33:03 | 2026-05-19T06:33:03 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,486,656,588 | 89,248 | elsakeirouz | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-19T10:05:07 | 2026-05-19T10:05:07 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,459,789 | 89,130 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:03:00 | 2026-05-18T14:03:00 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,680,917 | 88,914 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:28:20 | 2026-05-18T14:28:20 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,782,367 | 89,216 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-18T14:40:54 | 2026-05-18T14:40:54 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,783,190 | 89,216 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:41:00 | 2026-05-18T14:41:00 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,854,004 | 89,167 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:49:59 | 2026-05-18T14:49:59 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,479,728,613 | 89,071 | Snowy1803 | I'll merge this for now and we can iterate on it. | 2026-05-18T16:32:24 | 2026-05-18T16:32:24 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,147,016 | 89,204 | xedin | Yeah, I think it's either flow or region-based isolation problem related to `self` here. | 2026-05-18T17:24:38 | 2026-05-18T17:24:38 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,612,029 | 89,225 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T18:20:27 | 2026-05-18T18:20:27 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,481,216,943 | 88,122 | millenomi | Heck yes. | 2026-05-18T19:26:36 | 2026-05-18T19:26:36 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,481,458,486 | 89,227 | nkcsgexi | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T19:51:27 | 2026-05-18T19:51:27 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,962,710 | 89,233 | tshortli | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-18T22:56:50 | 2026-05-18T22:56:50 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,483,063,009 | 89,234 | DataCorrupted | Targeting `next` branch as suggested by John, since https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170618 has been included in [llvm next](https://github.com/swiftlang/llvm-project/tree/next) | 2026-05-18T23:16:30 | 2026-05-18T23:16:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,484,193,245 | 89,204 | adamjcampbell | @jamieQ @xedin
If I wanted to understand this one more and follow the developments in this space where should I look codewise to start reading and get a grounding? | 2026-05-19T03:40:55 | 2026-05-19T03:40:55 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,485,971,913 | 89,247 | eeckstein | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-19T08:42:15 | 2026-05-19T08:42:15 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,827,622 | 88,914 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-18T14:46:36 | 2026-05-18T14:46:36 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,479,334,176 | 89,221 | gottesmm | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-18T15:43:26 | 2026-05-18T15:43:26 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,016,352 | 89,210 | Snowy1803 | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T17:08:45 | 2026-05-18T17:08:45 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,101,958 | 89,204 | jamieQ | > I think closure being `@concurrent` here is correct based on the rules of `sending` and `@Sendable`. This closure is considered to be a "boundary" and cannot assume isolation of the context since it's being sent when passed to a parameter.
@xedin just to clarify – I agree that the isolation inference seems correct (... | 2026-05-18T17:19:21 | 2026-05-18T17:19:21 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,687,491 | 89,144 | Azoy | @swift-ci please test Linux | 2026-05-18T18:27:56 | 2026-05-18T18:27:56 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,481,496,524 | 87,797 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci smoke test macos | 2026-05-18T19:55:13 | 2026-05-18T19:55:13 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,486,824,786 | 88,914 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-19T10:28:05 | 2026-05-19T10:28:05 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,916,553 | 89,219 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please test | 2026-05-18T14:57:43 | 2026-05-18T14:57:43 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,479,460,632 | 89,222 | susmonteiro | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-18T15:59:35 | 2026-05-18T15:59:35 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,349,997 | 89,228 | atrick | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T21:23:32 | 2026-05-18T21:23:32 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,379,993 | 89,228 | atrick | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T21:26:55 | 2026-05-18T21:26:55 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,454,074 | 89,168 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please test | 2026-05-18T21:35:37 | 2026-05-18T21:35:37 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,485,404,070 | 89,245 | ktoso | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-19T07:28:01 | 2026-05-19T07:28:01 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,281,731 | 89,128 | NotTheNHK | @heckj Could you have a look? Linking directly to the appropriate section of TSPL should help with discoverability. What do you think? | 2026-05-18T17:43:14 | 2026-05-18T17:43:14 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,481,919,097 | 89,181 | mikeash | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-18T20:36:41 | 2026-05-18T20:36:41 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,118,995 | 88,775 | compnerd | @swift-ci please test Windows platform | 2026-05-18T20:56:13 | 2026-05-18T20:56:13 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,456,170 | 89,214 | macguru | Thanks, I’ll take a look. But I’d like to point out this is not actually a 6.3 issue as #88993 suggested, but a regression in 6.3.2 (Xcode 26.5) from 6.3.1 (Xcode 26.4.1). Backporting seems critical and urgent to me. Unfortunately it’s not easy to swap the toolchain in an Xcode version, so there’s no no-code workaround... | 2026-05-18T21:35:51 | 2026-05-18T21:35:51 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,483,690,899 | 89,225 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-19T01:36:56 | 2026-05-19T01:36:56 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,486,914,118 | 89,249 | artemcm | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-19T10:40:10 | 2026-05-19T10:40:10 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,403,073 | 89,123 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T13:56:12 | 2026-05-18T13:56:12 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,467,354,241 | 89,193 | somiljain2006 | @hamishknight @rintaro @slavapestov @xedin @nkcsgexi Can you please review this pr? | 2026-05-16T16:01:51 | 2026-05-18T16:00:01 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,479,802,501 | 87,797 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T16:42:07 | 2026-05-18T16:42:07 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,671,445 | 89,147 | xedin | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-18T22:07:38 | 2026-05-18T22:07:38 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,483,137,601 | 89,148 | Azoy | @swift-ci please benchmark | 2026-05-18T23:33:32 | 2026-05-18T23:33:32 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,484,661,749 | 85,372 | asl | @rjmccall I believe the last rebase also addresses your last comments. | 2026-05-19T05:20:43 | 2026-05-19T05:20:43 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,740,755 | 89,215 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please smoke test | 2026-05-18T14:35:41 | 2026-05-18T14:35:41 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,480,251,260 | 89,159 | meg-gupta | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T17:39:35 | 2026-05-18T17:39:35 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,430,581 | 88,547 | tbkka | @swift-ci Please test Linux | 2026-05-18T21:32:48 | 2026-05-18T21:32:48 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,484,682,752 | 89,213 | atrick | @swift-ci apple silicon benchmark | 2026-05-19T05:24:43 | 2026-05-19T05:24:43 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,479,629,836 | 89,223 | atrick | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-18T16:19:50 | 2026-05-18T16:19:50 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,481,930,283 | 89,180 | mikeash | Updated to keep `SWIFT_DEBUG_ENABLE_MALLOC_SCRIBBLE` around for compatibility. If set, and the new variable is not set, then we'll scribble with `0xaa` just like before. Tests can then set `SWIFT_DEBUG_ENABLE_MALLOC_SCRIBBLE` without generating warnings when running the compiler with the older runtime. | 2026-05-18T20:37:45 | 2026-05-18T20:37:45 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,907,164 | 89,231 | jmschonfeld | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-18T22:45:38 | 2026-05-18T22:45:38 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,483,537,491 | 89,061 | xedin | @swift-ci please clean test | 2026-05-19T00:58:51 | 2026-05-19T00:58:51 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,485,604,286 | 88,984 | Kartikayy007 | @xedin i think the storage unspecified is not enough | 2026-05-19T07:55:37 | 2026-05-19T07:55:37 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,485,973,002 | 89,247 | eeckstein | @swift-ci apple silicon benchmark | 2026-05-19T08:42:23 | 2026-05-19T08:42:23 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,482,423,121 | 88,547 | tbkka | I found the issue. | 2026-05-18T21:31:58 | 2026-05-18T21:31:58 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,487,127,496 | 89,123 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci test windows | 2026-05-19T11:06:57 | 2026-05-19T11:06:57 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,478,755,517 | 88,914 | aidan-hall | The previous approach left `dynamic_pack_index` instructions with no associated `open_pack_element` instructions. This triggered an assertion failure:
https://github.com/aidan-hall/swift/blob/pack-opt-substitution-cloner/lib/SIL/Verifier/SILVerifier.cpp#L6650
This assertion requires that every element of the indexe... | 2026-05-18T14:37:30 | 2026-05-18T14:37:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.