>> I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our
>> past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s)
>> of each patch, not reviewers.
>
> Is that what people want? Reviewers are easily removed. What about
> committers who adjust the patch?
Well, I still think
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I haven't yet heard any very good argument for deviating from our
>> past practice, which is to credit just the principal author(s)
>> of each patch, not reviewers.
>
> Is that what people want? Reviewers are easily removed.
+1 from me.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
>> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
>> potential names per item.
>>
> Main authors only. Re
Hackers,
I need a constraint that ensures that a text[] column has only unique values --
that is, that there is no overlap of values between rows. I thought this was a
made-to-order for an exclusion constraint. So I tried it:
david=# create table tags (names text[] primary key, exclude using gi
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:59:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.
>
> > Results have just shown it isn't a simple case. It is unclear how
> > important the revie
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We seem to be in danger of overthinking this.
> Results have just shown it isn't a simple case. It is unclear how
> important the reviewers were, and how much a committer rewrote the
> patch, and the signi
After further consideration, I think the patch I committed here:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=31ad6553646c81f3ce8fccf8aef1a1134a7864c7
may have been an overly hasty band-aid rather than a good fix.
The question that needs to be faced is: what should WaitLatchOrS
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:27:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Should we go with a single developer per item, and then let people
> >suggest corrections? With reviewers involved, and often multiple commit
> >messages per release note item, the just isn't enough detail in git logs
> >to reprodu
On 05/12/2012 09:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 03:42:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
potential names per item.
How much of a downside
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:11:49PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
> > their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
> > potential names per item.
> >
> Main aut
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 03:42:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
> > their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
> > potential names per item.
> >
> > How much of a downside is having the names in the
I wrote:
> While testing this I discovered a pre-existing bug in the Unix
> implementation of WaitLatchOrSocket: EOF on the socket is reported as
> POLLHUP not POLLIN (at least on my Linux box), which results in
> WaitLatchOrSocket going into an infinite loop, because poll() returns
> immediately b
On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
> potential names per item.
>
Main authors only. Reviewers should be mentioned only in the commit log. If I
coded
Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 05/12/2012 03:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... I do not however have the ability
> to test the Windows side of it, so it'd be nice if someone would check
> that that still works (particularly, that it shuts down cleanly).
> Everything looks kosher on my Windows machine (t
On 05/12/2012 04:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/12/2012 03:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I noticed a large oversight in our efforts to reduce the server's idle
wakeup frequency: if you've got logging_collector turned on, the
syslogger process will wake up once a second, whether it has anything
> How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
> their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
> potential names per item.
>
> How much of a downside is having the names in the release notes? For
> example, we decided that company names shouldn't b
On lör, 2012-05-12 at 10:37 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Do we have a full list of externally defined open standards that we
> follow?
Well, there are a lot of them, starting with things like ASCII and ANSI
C.
If you grep through the documentation for things like "RFC" or "ISO",
you will find a nu
On lör, 2012-05-12 at 10:32 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 May 2012 19:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > I have been reviewing how our new libpq URL syntax compares against
> > existing implementations of URL syntaxes in other drivers or
> > higher-level access libraries. In the case of SQLAlc
On 05/12/2012 03:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I noticed a large oversight in our efforts to reduce the server's idle
wakeup frequency: if you've got logging_collector turned on, the
syslogger process will wake up once a second, whether it has anything
to do or not. But the only reasons it has for wa
I noticed a large oversight in our efforts to reduce the server's idle
wakeup frequency: if you've got logging_collector turned on, the
syslogger process will wake up once a second, whether it has anything
to do or not. But the only reasons it has for waking up are signals,
data arrival, and time-
On 12 May 2012 17:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 12 May 2012 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs writes:
Case (2) is more complex than described. If we use XID always, then
the so-say stable value could change mid way through a scan when the
XID is assigned an
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 12 May 2012 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> Case (2) is more complex than described. If we use XID always, then
>>> the so-say stable value could change mid way through a scan when the
>>> XID is assigned and would provide neither a stable, sensible nor
On 12 May 2012 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Case (2) is more complex than described. If we use XID always, then
>> the so-say stable value could change mid way through a scan when the
>> XID is assigned and would provide neither a stable, sensible nor a
>> backwards compatible
Simon Riggs writes:
> Case (2) is more complex than described. If we use XID always, then
> the so-say stable value could change mid way through a scan when the
> XID is assigned and would provide neither a stable, sensible nor a
> backwards compatible response.
No, that's entirely wrong. The or
>>Simon Riggs wrote:
>>On 9 May 2012 19:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> I have been reviewing how our new libpq URL syntax compares
>>> against existing implementations of URL syntaxes in other drivers
>>> or higher-level access libraries. In the case of SQLAlchemy,
>>> there is an incompatibi
In summary, names on release note items potentially have the following
beneficial effects:
* Encouraging new developers/reviewers
* Encouraging long-established developers
* Showing appreciation to developers
* Assisting future employment for developers
* Helping developers get future funding
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:37:58PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why can't we call group commit group commit
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh ... while hacking win32 PGSemaphoreLock I saw that it has a *seriously*
>>> nasty bug: it does not reset ImmediateInterruptOK before returning.
>>> How is it that
On 11 May 2012 19:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>
> It's arguable that what we should do is "use XID if on master, capture
> ReadNewTransactionId if on slave", which would avoid any backwards
> incompatibility for the first two cases while still fixing the case that
> everybody agrees
Do we have a full list of externally defined open standards that we follow?
Are there any known incompatibilities from externally defined open standards?
(I know about the SQL standard stuff).
Are there any things that need standards that don't have them? (Be brief)
Some high level general quest
On 9 May 2012 19:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have been reviewing how our new libpq URL syntax compares against
> existing implementations of URL syntaxes in other drivers or
> higher-level access libraries. In the case of SQLAlchemy, there is an
> incompatibility regarding how Unix-domain so
On fre, 2012-05-11 at 11:28 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
> On 10/05/12 19:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On lör, 2012-05-05 at 22:45 +0200, Jan Urbański wrote:
> >> Apparently once you implement PyMappingMethods.mp_subscript you can
> >> drop PySequenceMethods.sq_slice, but I guess there's no harm i
32 matches
Mail list logo
