On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 21:58, Rod Taylor wrote:
> Sounds fair. I'd have brought it up earlier but was away last week.
>
> The changes I made are very straight forward and easy enough to redo.
I've sent the patch to the -patches list -Please let me know if there
are any queries -I will be able to
e"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hackers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] command.c breakup
> On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 21:30, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I'm not exactly sure what you're touching, but could it wait for
t
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 21:30, Rod Taylor wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure what you're touching, but could it wait for the
> below pg_depend patch to be either accepted or rejected? It lightly
> fiddles with a number of files in the command and catalog directories.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
I'm not exactly sure what you're touching, but could it wait for the
below pg_depend patch to be either accepted or rejected? It lightly
fiddles with a number of files in the command and catalog directories.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-04/msg00050.php
> > That shouldn't b
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 03:33, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Fine. I'll work on that basis. I'll prepare a full-blown patch which can
> > be applied Monday -unless anyone else is sitting on uncommitted changes
> > to the directory that they want me to wait for?
>
> Nothing important. Shall I
> Fine. I'll work on that basis. I'll prepare a full-blown patch which can
> be applied Monday -unless anyone else is sitting on uncommitted changes
> to the directory that they want me to wait for?
Nothing important. Shall I suggest that you do the rearrangement first, and
then once everything'
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 15:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > That shouldn't be too much of a problem in the next couple of weeks - if
> > we can decide on a specific day I'll book it into my diary (Any day but
> > Wednesday next week would be fine for me).
>
> I will try to have no uncommitted changes over
John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have compiled a new version against current CVS, now also including
> references to dependencies (See below). I accept that we'll need to work
> round the schema project -in the week since the last message I notice
> that namespace support has arrived for
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's my current working draft (doesn't include material from the
> > last couple of weeks):
>
> Please note that there's been pretty substantial revisions in command.c
> and creatinh.c over the past couple
John Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's my current working draft (doesn't include material from the
> last couple of weeks):
Please note that there's been pretty substantial revisions in command.c
and creatinh.c over the past couple of weeks for schema support. While
I think that those tw
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 09:39, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> With regards to the proposed command.c refactoring...
>
..about which I should apologise as I stuck my head above the parapet
and then sat on my ideas (mixing metaphors a bit).
> I've done it by removing command.c and rep
Hi All,
With regards to the proposed command.c refactoring...
I've done it by removing command.c and replacing it with
portal.c
alter.c
lock.c
namespace.c
Is that a good idea? Will it break too many outstanding patches?
Basically the portal fetch/destroy commands go in portal.c, all the Alte
12 matches
Mail list logo
