On 9 Nov 2011, at 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> This commit adds a new warning on my machine:
>>
>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=d326d9e8ea1d690cf6d968000efaa5121206d231
>>
>> copy.c: In function *Do
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> This commit adds a new warning on my machine:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=d326d9e8ea1d690cf6d968000efaa5121206d231
>
> copy.c: In function *DoCopy*:
> copy.c:1861:14: warning: *bufferedTuples* may be
This commit adds a new warning on my machine:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=d326d9e8ea1d690cf6d968000efaa5121206d231
copy.c: In function *DoCopy*:
copy.c:1861:14: warning: *bufferedTuples* may be used uninitialized
in this function
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsq
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be reasonable to throw a warning if you revoke a privilege from
> some role, and that role inherits the privilege from some other role (or
> PUBLIC)?
This has been suggested and rejected before --- the consensus is it'd
be too noisy.
Possibly the
On IRC today someone brought up a problem in which users were still able
to connect to a database after a "REVOKE CONNECT ... FROM theuser". The
reason theuser is still able to connect is because PUBLIC still has
privileges to connect by default (AndrewSN was the one who answered
this).
Would it b
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 01:27 PM 24/08/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I prefer declaring it as unsigned, which means you drop the
>> \377 end instead ...
> ...I've used explicit values (128) since '\200' is -127.
Actually I'd go with "(unsigned char) '\200'". There's a bunch
of
At 01:27 PM 24/08/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I prefer declaring it as unsigned, which means you drop the
\377 end instead ...
No problem.
Philip Warner| __---_
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |/ - \
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 01:58 AM 24/08/2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> static int _isIdentChar(unsigned char c)
> I think the correct thing to do is to leave it as (signed) char, and remove
> the comparison to \200 = -127.
No, that isn't the right thing, because not all pla
At 01:27 PM 24/08/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I prefer declaring it as unsigned, which means you drop the
\377 end instead ...
...I've used explicit values (128) since '\200' is -127.
Philip Warner| __---_
Albatr
At 01:58 AM 24/08/2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
static int _isIdentChar(unsigned char c)
I think the correct thing to do is to leave it as (signed) char, and remove
the comparison to \200 = -127. All chars will be >= -127. I will fix this
in the next release.
--
Hackers,
I'm seeing this:
gcc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations
-I/home/alvherre/CVS/pgsql/source/00orig/src/interfaces/libpq -I../../../src/include
-I/home/alvherre/CVS/pgsql/source/00orig/src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -DFRONTEND -c -o
pg_backup_db.o
11 matches
Mail list logo