Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-05-03 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Committed with slight editorializing. Statement timeout was only introduced in 7.3, whereas pg_dump can dump from much older versions of Postgres. You forget a ; in this committ [1]. [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-05/msg00028.php -- Euler

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

2008-05-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And the -c version :) (thanks bruce) Committed with slight editorializing. Statement timeout was only introduced in 7.3, whereas pg_du

Re: [HACKERS] statement timeout vs dump/restore

2008-05-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Do we want the following: 1. pg_dump issues "set statement_timeout = 0;" to the database prior to taking its copy of data (yes/no/default-but-switchable) 2. pg_dump/pg_restore issue "set statement_timeout = 0;" in text mode output (y

Re: [HACKERS] statement timeout vs dump/restore

2008-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we want the following: > 1. pg_dump issues "set statement_timeout = 0;" to the database prior to > taking its copy of data (yes/no/default-but-switchable) > 2. pg_dump/pg_restore issue "set statement_timeout = 0;" in text mode > output (yes/no/defa

[HACKERS] statement timeout vs dump/restore

2008-05-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I'm a bit confused about where the consensus is on this issue ( http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[EMAIL PROTECTED] et al) Do we want the following: 1. pg_dump issues "set statement_timeout = 0;" to the database prior to taking its copy of data (yes/no/default-but-switchable) 2. pg_

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg localization

2008-05-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: > I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to apply now despite being > incomplete.  The patch touches enough places in ecpg that code drift is > likely to be a serious problem if it has to sit around for long. We could do that, as soon as the author understands where the patc

Re: [HACKERS] ecpg localization

2008-05-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > I don't know if I understand what you want to say by "call gettext". A > quick look at the l10n of backend proves that it calls gettext > everywhere. Could you ellaborate? In nls.mk, you mark mmerror as containing arguments for translation, but mmerror doesn't c