On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Sep29, 2011, at 13:49 , Simon Riggs wrote:
This worries me slightly now though because the patch makes us PANIC
in a place we didn't used to and
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
I repeat my objection to this patch. I'm very sorry I haven't been
around much in last few weeks to keep up a dialogue about this and to
make it clear how wrong I think
Great, thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4856336.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:22:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:22:03AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Robert Haas ?09/25/11 10:58 AM
I'm not sure we've been 100% consistent about that, since we
I wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
Isn't it possible to cache signature of newitem in gtrgm_penalty
like gtrgm_consistent do this for query?
[ studies that code for awhile ... ] Ick, what a kluge.
The main problem with that code is that the cache data gets leaked at
I regret that as a part-timer recently brought back on here I didn't
get an opportunity to test this earlier. The upgrade with the patch
worked fine on my first attempt.
Thanks again,
Jamie
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Jamie Fox wrote:
Thanks, I'm
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
I repeat my objection to this patch. I'm very sorry I haven't been
around much in last few
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
horiguchi.kyot...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
I repeat my
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If the feature could not be done another way, easily, I might agree.
I don't see that you've offered a reasonable alternative. The
alternative proposals that you proposed don't appear to me to be
solving the same problem.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If the feature could not be done another way, easily, I might agree.
I don't see that you've offered a reasonable alternative. The
alternative
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
just pg_cancel_backend as non-superuser would be just a
I wrote:
So what I'm thinking we ought to do is redefine things so that
initGISTstate sets fn_mcxt to a context that has the same lifespan as
the GISTSTATE itself does. We could possibly eliminate a few retail
pfree's in the process, eg by keeping the GISTSTATE itself in that same
context.
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
just
2011/10/1 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com writes:
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in
14 matches
Mail list logo
