On lör, 2011-02-26 at 09:43 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
I'm officially at a loss on how to fix that bug without some serious
gutting of how PL/Python arguments work. If someone comes up with a
brilliant way to solve this problem, we can commit it after beta, or
even during the 9.2 cycle (should
- Original message -
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org
wrote:
On 15/02/11 20:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
[a bug that we don't know how to fix]
From this discussion I gather that we have a
2011/2/26 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
- Original message -
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org
wrote:
On 15/02/11 20:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
[a bug that we don't know how to fix]
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org
wrote:
On 15/02/11 20:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
[a bug that we don't know how to fix]
From this discussion I gather that we have a problem here that
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org wrote:
On 15/02/11 20:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
Because the invocation that actually recurses sets up the scene for
failure.
That's what we're observing, but I can't
- Original message -
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 22:22 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
The problem is that every *second* call to the function fails,
regardless of the number. The first execution succeeds, but then
PLy_delete_args deletes the argument from the globals, and when the
next
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
Because the invocation that actually recurses sets up the scene for
failure.
That's what we're observing, but I can't figure out why it is. If you
can, could you explain it?
It actually makes sense to me that the arguments should be
On 15/02/11 20:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2011-02-15 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
Because the invocation that actually recurses sets up the scene for
failure.
That's what we're observing, but I can't figure out why it is. If you
can, could you explain it?
It actually
On ons, 2011-02-09 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 09/02/11 04:52, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/12/31 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops PL/Python from removing the function's
arguments from its globals dict after calling
On 14/02/11 21:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2011-02-09 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 09/02/11 04:52, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/12/31 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops PL/Python from removing the function's
On 14/02/11 22:13, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 14/02/11 21:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2011-02-09 at 10:02 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 09/02/11 04:52, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/12/31 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 22:22 +0100, Jan Urbański wrote:
The problem is that every *second* call to the function fails,
regardless of the number. The first execution succeeds, but then
PLy_delete_args deletes the argument from the globals, and when the
next execution tries to fetch n from it, it
On 09/02/11 04:52, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2010/12/31 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops PL/Python from removing the function's
arguments from its globals dict after calling it. It's
an incremental patch on top of the
2010/12/31 Jan Urbański wulc...@wulczer.org:
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops PL/Python from removing the function's
arguments from its globals dict after calling it. It's
an incremental patch on top of the plpython-refactor patch sent in
(continuing the flurry of patches)
Here's a patch that stops PL/Python from removing the function's
arguments from its globals dict after calling it. It's
an incremental patch on top of the plpython-refactor patch sent in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4d135170.3080...@wulczer.org.
15 matches
Mail list logo
