>> I ported the entire schema to my test DB server and could not reproduce
>> the error there. Note that probably recreating the view solves this
>> issue. Given this, how should I proceed to create a test case? Any
>> tutorial on this? (I'm not too familiar with all this yet.)
>
> It's possibly s
Manabu Ori writes:
> I recreated the patch as you advised.
Hmm, guess I wasn't clear --- we still need a configure test, since even
if we are on PPC64 there's no guarantee that the assembler will accept
the hint bit.
I revised the patch to include a configure test and committed it.
However, I om
2012/1/2 Peter Eisentraut :
> On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
>> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
>> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would
Currently, pg_dump sorts operators by name, but operators with the same
name come out in random order. A few releases ago we adjusted this for
functions, so that they are in increasing number of arguments order.
I'd like to do this for operators as well, so that they come out in
order, say, prefix
On sön, 2011-11-27 at 17:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > This ought to show EXECUTE privilege on the new function, but it
> > doesn't, because proacl is null, and nothing in the information schema
> > handles that specially.
>
> > I've pondered some ways to fix that. One
On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would make
> things a bit more robust
I think I would like to have a set of GUC parameters to control the
location of the server-side SSL files. In a setup that has all the
other configuration files under /etc, the SSL files ought to go there as
well. (For comparison, most email and web servers keep them there.)
Having them in the da
On 12/31/2011 06:10 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
Brar Piening wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Can you narrow down exactly what in that commit broke VS 2010? Are
there any compiler warnings?
I was able to nail down the problem.
In the absence of reaction, to keep my promise, I'm sending the
attac
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> It also doesn't affect backups taken through pg_basebackup - but I
> guess you have good reasons for not being able to use that?
Parallel archiving/de-archiving and segmentation of the backup into
pieces and rate limiting are the most clear
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> That's awfully complicated. If we're going to require co-operation from the
> backup/archiving software, we might as well just change the procedure so
> that backup_label is not stored in the data directory, but returned by
> pg_start/sto
On 12/31/2011 04:26 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of sáb dic 31 12:52:02 -0300 2011:
It's not a big thing, but I just found myself in a shared environment
wanting to be able to set alternative locations
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 14:18, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 30.12.2011 02:40, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> How about this revised protocol (names and adjustments welcome), to
>> enable a less-terrible approach? Not only is that workaround
>> incorrect (it has a small window where the system will n
On 30.12.2011 02:40, Daniel Farina wrote:
How about this revised protocol (names and adjustments welcome), to
enable a less-terrible approach? Not only is that workaround
incorrect (it has a small window where the system will not be able to
restart), but it's pretty inconvenient.
New concepts:
Hello all
here is new version of CHECK FUNCTION patch
I changed implementation of interface:
* checked functions returns table instead raising exceptions - it
necessary for describing more issues inside one function - and it
allow to use better structured data then ExceptionData
postgres=# sel
.
I recreated the patch as you advised.
ppc-TAS_SPIN-20120101.diff
Description: Binary data
> BTW, while reading the ISA document I couldn't help noticing that LWARX
> is clearly specified to operate on 4-byte quantities (there's LDARX if
> you want to use 8-byte). Which seems
I wrote:
> it might be that the only machines that actually spit up on the hint bit
> (rather than ignore it) were 32-bit, in which case this would be a
> usable heuristic. Not sure how we can research that ... do we want to
> just assume the kernel guys know what they're doing?
I did a bit of re
16 matches
Mail list logo
