PG Build Farm wrote:
The PGBuildfarm member skylark had the following event on branch HEAD:
Failed at Stage: Make
The snapshot timestamp for the build that triggered this notification is:
2007-09-29 03:00:01
The specs of this machine are:
OS: Windows XP / SP2
Arch: x64
Comp: Visual
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
That's not fixing the problem, unless your proposal includes never
issuing any warnings at all, for anything.
No warning for * because it is intentional, but warning for actual
stop words.
No, you're focusing
A while back in an off-hand comment Tom packed varlenas he mentioned that we
might want to have more types of toast pointers. Since then the idea of some
alternative column-wise partitioning scheme has come up and another idea I've
been tossing around is some kind of compression scheme which
Tom Lane wrote:
If this is what's happening I'd claim it is a kernel bug, but seeing
that I see it on FC6 and Miya sees it on Solaris 10, it would be a bug
widespread enough that we'd not be likely to get it killed off soon.
I think my colleague was solving similar issue in JavaDB. IIRC the
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PG Build Farm wrote:
For more information, see
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=skylarkbr=HEAD
I think this just needs a new object added to the libpgport list in
Mkvcbuild.pm at line 46-50.
My fault, sorry about that. But I'm
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
One possible real solution would be to tweak the dictionary APIs so
that the dictionaries can find out whether this is the first load during
a session, or a reload, and emit notices only in the first case.
Yea, that would work too. Or
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm wondering whether it doesn't make sense to lower VARATT_SHORT_MAX to 0x70
to allow for at least a small number of constant values which could indicate
some special type of datum. That could be used to indicate that a fixed size
pointer like a toast
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm wondering whether it doesn't make sense to lower VARATT_SHORT_MAX to 0x70
to allow for at least a small number of constant values which could indicate
some special type of datum. That could be used to indicate that
It strikes me that CLUSTER has been broken since CREATE INDEX
CONCURRENTLY was put in, because it doesn't check whether the index
it's been asked to cluster on is valid. If C.I.C. fails before marking
the index indisvalid, a subsequent CLUSTER would happily cluster using
only the index entries
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm getting less and less satisfied
with the way that the MSVC build system is forcing us to duplicate all
the knowledge in the Makefiles.
I whined about this quite some time ago ...
One thing I did in the commit that broke this was to move the list of
fixed
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not for this because it would complicate the already-too-complicated
inner-loop tests for deciding which form of datum you're looking at.
The idea that I recall mentioning was to expend another byte in TOAST
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm wondering whether it doesn't make sense to lower VARATT_SHORT_MAX to 0x70
to allow for at least a small number of constant values which could indicate
some special type of datum. That could be used to indicate that
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea that I recall mentioning was to expend another byte in TOAST
pointers to make them self-identifying, ie, instead of 0x80 or 0x01
signaling something that *must* be a 17-byte toast pointer, that bit
pattern
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we need another week to get things ready for beta.
Why? Other than the lack of release notes, we could wrap on Monday.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have
I think we need another week to get things ready for beta. I will have
the release notes done mid-week and hopefully we can close out all open
items by the end of the week.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd be inclined to make the second byte be the length and have
VARSIZE_1B_E depend on that --- any objection?
On one hand it offends me since it's hard coding an assumption that the size
of a pointer decides what it contains and vice versa. There's nothing
16 matches
Mail list logo
