On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I don't see why we can't do exactly what you're suggesting in core.
Because you can't (if you're
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:31:30AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
This doesn't seem right:
$ pg_ctl -D /nowhere status
pg_ctl: no server running
It does exit with status 3, so it's not all that broken, but I think the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 08:47:43AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/5/13, 8:46 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
I suppose this should be call to exit_nicely() for all possible cases.
The only need for calling exit_horribly() is when we are deep down in
the multithreaded code, AFAIK.
Doesn't
On 2014-03-05 17:40:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't believe that this is legal per C90:
typedef struct ReorderBufferChange
{
XLogRecPtrlsn;
/* type of change */
union
{
enum ReorderBufferChangeType action;
/* do not leak internal enum values to
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-05 17:40:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
By the time you get done fixing the portability issue, I suspect you
won't have a union at all for the first case.
You might be right. I'd rather not leak the internal enum values to the
public though,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 08:36:32PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-11-04 13:48:32 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
What about just unowning the smgr entry with
if (rel-rd_smgr != NULL)
smgrsetowner(NULL, rel-rd_smgr)
when closing the fake relcache entry?
That shouldn't require any
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-03-04 12:54:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-03-05 19:12:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-05 17:40:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
By the time you get done fixing the portability issue, I suspect you
won't have a union at all for the first case.
You might be right. I'd rather not
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-03-05 17:40:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't believe that this is legal per C90:
typedef struct ReorderBufferChange
{
XLogRecPtrlsn;
/* type of change */
union
{
enum
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-05 19:12:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm surprised too; I had thought we still had some critters running
hoary compilers. We need to do something about that if we actually
believe in C90-compiler support.
What version was the gcc that
On 2014-03-05 20:03:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
However, this is probably a bit beside the point. I'm quite prepared
to believe that nobody uses gcc 4.0 anymore. The question is what
older non-gcc compilers are still out there, and can we either get hold
of them for the buildfarm, or trust
On 2014-03-05 20:02:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Urgh. I know that isn't per project style, but I just plain missed it
while staring at these patches. At one point I thought of complaining
that separating the public
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:46:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Steve Crawford
scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com wrote:
Due to a variety of messages over time regarding perceived weirdness in
to_timestamp and to_date, this patch adds (see notes) in the
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Antonin Houska
antonin.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
catalog/catalog.c:GetNewRelFileNode() and its calls indicate that the
following change makes sense:
On 03/06/2014 04:56 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
It might be an idea to add the SELECT RLS clause for DML
queries that contain a RETURNING clause.
That way lies madness: A DML statement that affects *a different set of
rows* depending on whether or not it has a RETURNING clause.
If you state it
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe that it's possible to do this easily
today because of the way bucket splits are handled. I wrote about
this previously here, with an idea for solving the problem:
We could just tackle this
On Mar5, 2014, at 18:27 , Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 14:35, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
When I added the EXPLAIN stuff, I initially simply reported the number
of times nodeWindowAgg has to restart the aggregation. The problem with
that approach is that
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Can I bug you into verifying what supported releases need this patch,
and to which does it backpatch cleanly? And if there's any to which it
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Antonin Houska
antonin.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
This version looks basically good. I have some cosmetic things to sweep up
before commit. One point is a bit more substantial:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:16:22PM +0100, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
Le lundi 3 février 2014 23:28:45 Noah Misch a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:53:51AM +0100, Ronan
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:10:27PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 01:35:45PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
Having that said, I can appreciate the value of tightening the socket mode
for
a bit of *extra* safety:
--- a/src/test/regress/pg_regress.c
+++
Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
* Please drop the whole register_custom_provider/get_custom_provider
API.
One thing I was worrying about is how copyObject() and nodeToString()
support set of function pointer tables around custom-scan node,
however, you suggested to change
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:31:30AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
This doesn't seem right:
$ pg_ctl -D /nowhere status
pg_ctl: no server running
It
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
So, now knowing that hstore2 is just hierarchical hstore using the same
hstore type name, you are saying that we are keeping the
non-hierarchical code in contrib, and the rest goes into core --- that
makes sense, and from a
On 03/05/2014 09:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
It's hard to justify having a user-facing hstore2 on the grounds of
backwards compatibility, and giving those stuck on hstore the benefit
of all of these new capabilities. That's because we *cannot* really
preserve compatibility, AFAICT. Many of
2014-03-05 16:22 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pavel Stehule escribió:
Hi
I hope, so this patch fix it
wtf?
I tried to fix
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=f1ba94bcd9717b94b36868d6905547e313f3a359
Tom did it better than me.
On 03/06/2014 04:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0100, Antonin Houska wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Antonin Houska
antonin.hou...@gmail.com
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
