Re: multiple pass-persist

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wes Hardaker wrote: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 1:35:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Slifcak) said: Michael> Is there _significant_ downside to incorporating this patch Michael> before the 5.1.2 release ? should be ok if it helps things. Actually, I've got a different pat

Re: multiple pass-persist

Wes Hardaker wrote: >>On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 1:35:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Slifcak) said: > > >Michael> Is there _significant_ downside to incorporating this patch >Michael> before the 5.1.2 release ? > >should be ok if it helps things. > Actually, I've got a different patch that w

Re: multiple pass-persist

> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 1:35:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Slifcak) said: Michael> Is there _significant_ downside to incorporating this patch Michael> before the 5.1.2 release ? should be ok if it helps things. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta ---

multiple pass-persist

Please see bug #819154 (more than one exec is a problem). The same problem for pass_persist. If the attached patch is applied, then multiple "pass_persist" seem to work correctly. Is there _significant_ downside to incorporating this patch before the 5.1.2 release ? e.g., will it break existing