Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of sáb jun 23 18:08:31 -0400 2012:
> I spotted a couple of other issues during testing:
David, when you generate a new version of the patch, please also make
sure to use RELKIND_RELATION and RELKIND_FOREIGN instead of 'r' and 'f'.
> * You're still allowing I
On 06/22/2012 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway, the attached patch does seem to fix the constraint bug.
Looks sane to me.
A possible objection to it is that there are now three different ways in
which the pg_dump code knows which DO_XXX object types go in which dump
section: the new addB
On Saturday, June 23, 2012, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> About the new --maintenance-db options:
>
> Why was this option not added to createuser and dropuser? In the
> original discussion[0] they were mentioned, but it apparently never made
> it into the code.
>
> I find the name to be unfortunate.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So here's the rebased version.
I found a couple problems on `make check-world`. Attached is a patch
to fix one of them. The other is on pg_upgrade, pasted below.
+ pg_upgrade -d
/home/kevin/pg/master/contrib/pg_upgrade/tmp_check/data.old -D
/home/kevin/pg/master/con
About the new --maintenance-db options:
Why was this option not added to createuser and dropuser? In the
original discussion[0] they were mentioned, but it apparently never made
it into the code.
I find the name to be unfortunate. For example, I think of running
vacuum as "maintenance". So run
On 23 March 2012 18:38, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:23:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from David Fetter's message of jue mar 15 02:28:28 -0300 2012:
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:06:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David
On mån, 2012-06-18 at 20:57 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think the difference in initdb cost is relevant when running
> the regression tests. Should it prove to be we can re-add -N after a
> week or two in the buildfarm machines.
Keep in mind that the regression tests are not only run on
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 18.06.2012 13:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> On 10.06.2012 23:39, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> I found the interface between resowner.c and lock.c a bit confusing.
>> resowner.c would sometimes call LockReassignCurrentOwner() to reassign
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> On 12-06-23 08:21 AM, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
>> Try in the search box of postgres doxygen documentation [1]..
> That's source, not documentation. I already found it in the actual
> source files but that's not the same thing. For one thing, if it
> isn't documented then
On 12-06-23 08:21 AM, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
Still nothing in the documentation. At least the search box doesn't
find it.
Try in the search box of postgres doxygen documentation [1]..
That's source, not documentation. I already found it in the actual
source files but that's not the same t
2012/6/23 D'Arcy Cain :
> On 12-06-23 12:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "D'Arcy Cain" writes:
>>>
>>> On 12-06-22 07:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think DirectionFunctionCall2 is what you want.
>>
>>
>>> Can you elaborate? I could not find a single hit in Google or the
>>> documentation sea
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 10:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, by why is it initdb's job to fsync the
> files the server creates, rather than the server's job? Normally we
> rely on the server to make its own writes persistent.
That was my first reaction as well:
http://a
-Original Message-
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:59 PM
To: Amit Kapila
Cc: Tom Lane; Alvaro Herrera; Cédric Villemain; Pg Hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Allow WAL information to recover corrupted
pg_controldata
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:2
13 matches
Mail list logo
