On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:00:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:39:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > There we go:
> > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae&dt=2017-05-16%2023:16:53&stg=typedefs
> >
> > Y
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 06:06:35PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-05-16 21:02:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for
> > > the research.
> >
> > Yeah, I think we're ready, unless anyone has a large
On 2017-05-16 21:02:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for
> > the research.
>
> Yeah, I think we're ready, unless anyone has a large patch they want
> to stick in first ...
I've this pending JIT support...
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, I assume we are good to go for Wednesday afternoon, UTC. Thanks for
> the research.
Yeah, I think we're ready, unless anyone has a large patch they want
to stick in first ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:39:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > There we go:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae&dt=2017-05-16%2023:16:53&stg=typedefs
>
> Yup, looks good now. Thanks!
>
> BTW, comparing the typedef list to what I
On 05/16/2017 08:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> There we go:
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae&dt=2017-05-16%2023:16:53&stg=typedefs
> Yup, looks good now. Thanks!
>
> BTW, comparing the typedef list to what I got a few hours ago,
Andres Freund writes:
> There we go:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=calliphoridae&dt=2017-05-16%2023:16:53&stg=typedefs
Yup, looks good now. Thanks!
BTW, comparing the typedef list to what I got a few hours ago, I see
that "Function" is now a known type name, al
On 05/16/2017 06:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-05-16 18:43:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, we don't seem to have entries for any of the typedefs
>> associated with the ICU code, eg UChar. This is not terribly
>> surprising since none of the buildfarm critters contributing type
On 2017-05-16 18:56:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > No clue if there's some switch that needs to be toggled on the buildfarm
> > side to accept the typedefs, I've never looked at that side of things.
>
> AFAIK, not; I think it just takes any typedef reports that aren't too
>
Andres Freund writes:
> No clue if there's some switch that needs to be toggled on the buildfarm
> side to accept the typedefs, I've never looked at that side of things.
AFAIK, not; I think it just takes any typedef reports that aren't too
stale.
regards, tom lane
--
S
On 2017-05-16 18:43:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Specifically, we don't seem to have entries for any of the typedefs
> associated with the ICU code, eg UChar. This is not terribly
> surprising since none of the buildfarm critters contributing typedef
> lists are building with --with-icu. It looks
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
> afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone?
I've been doing some preliminary checking on what pgindent will do,
and I notice that some typedef names are getting misindented because
they are not in the cur
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Releasing alpha/beta is not the same as branching, which I didn't expect
>> us to do for a while yet..
> Well, tagging then. Imo it still should be done before we tag
> beta1/alpha1.
Too late, IMO. Yeah, I'd have pre
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
> > > > afternoon, UT
On 2017-05-14 17:22:16 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
> > > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone?
> >
> > Shouldn't we do
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
> > afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone?
>
> Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the
> intended
On 2017-05-14 09:53:17 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
> afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone?
Shouldn't we do that before we branch? And if Thursday still is the
intended alpha/beta release date, Wednesday would be too late, n
I would like to run pgindent on the head source tree this Wednesday
afternoon, UTC. Is that OK for everyone?
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+
18 matches
Mail list logo
