Noah Misch writes:
> Here's a fix to make the MSVC build process account for the addition of
> HAVE_UUID_OSSP. (None of the MSVC buildfarm members enable uuid-ossp.)
Looks reasonable. I'm unable to test this scenario, but if you have,
please commit.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:46:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pushed; thanks for working on this!
Here's a fix to make the MSVC build process account for the addition of
HAVE_UUID_OSSP. (None of the MSVC buildfarm members enable uuid-ossp.)
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
>> creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
>> the dash, and we have regularly questioned the viability of the
>> uu
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:56:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
> > creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
> > the dash, and we have regularly questioned the viability o
Bruce Momjian writes:
> One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
> creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
> the dash, and we have regularly questioned the viability of the
> uuid-ossp codebase.
> Now that we know we have to support
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the
> > > upgrade to 2.69.
> >
> > Nobody else appears to be conce
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 05/29/2014 08:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Yes, it'd have been nice if this were done a month+ ago. But nobody
>> stepped up :(. Seems like the least bad choice :/
> The most worrying thing is that we didn't find the occasioning problem
> when we switched to autocon
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-05-29 08:49:38 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
>> what we want.
> Still wouldn't have solved that ossp already didn't work on several
> platforms at all anymore and is likely to work on even fe
On 2014-05-29 08:49:38 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/29/14, 8:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > But I don't see downgrading to an
> > earlier autoconf as something really helpful.
>
> Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
> what we want.
Still wouldn't have s
On 5/29/14, 8:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> But I don't see downgrading to an
> earlier autoconf as something really helpful.
Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
what we want.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
On 05/29/2014 08:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade to
2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this o
On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade
> > to 2.69.
>
> Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this option.
I am pretty concerned actual
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade
> to 2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this option.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not terribly happy about pushing such a change post-beta1 either,
> but it's not like this isn't something we've known was needed. Anyway,
> what's the worst case if we find a bug here? Tell people not to use
> uuid-ossp?
Mainly some more discussion ti
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I'm shocked that this new feature has been committed post beta with less
> than 48 hours of review time over a holiday weekend. This issue has
> been known for years. Why does it need to be solved right now?
As per the commit message: our packagers were screaming abou
On 5/27/14, 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
>> On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
>>>
>>> --with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
>>>
>>> with no default at present (ie you can't say just "--with-uuid",
>>> though we'd hav
On 5/26/14, 1:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Assuming this works as advertised, does anyone have an objection to
> pushing it into 9.4?
Yes, it's way too late for that.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.or
Pushed; thanks for working on this!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
>>
>> --with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
>>
>> with no default at present (ie you can't say just "--with-uuid",
>> though we'd have the option to allow that in future). But
On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane wrote:
>Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The problem is that the long-established spelling is
>--with-ossp-uuid.
>>> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up
>something
>>> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem
On May 27, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In either case, the problem remains of exactly what to call the
> e2fsprogs-derived implementation. It does seem that people who are
> familiar with these libraries call it that, but I'm worried that such
> a name will confuse those not so familiar.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is that the long-established spelling is --with-ossp-uuid.
>> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up something
>> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
>> advantage to doing so compared to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Why not --with-uuid-implementation=, and have be one of
> > e2utils, bsd, ossp, with the latter being default? We could also have
> > offer the value "list" or "help" which would list the available options.
> > That way, if we come up with a new imple
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Why not --with-uuid-implementation=, and have be one of
> e2utils, bsd, ossp, with the latter being default? We could also have
> offer the value "list" or "help" which would list the available options.
> That way, if we come up with a new implementation in the future, t
On 2014-05-27 16:36:45 +0200, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ah, cool. I had documented this option as only working for FreeBSD,
> > but that's obviously too conservative. Anyone know about whether it
> > works on OpenBSD?
>
> I've tried to google "man uuid open
Matteo Beccati writes:
> On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, cool. I had documented this option as only working for FreeBSD,
>> but that's obviously too conservative. Anyone know about whether it
>> works on OpenBSD?
> I've tried to google "man uuid openbsd" and I got the e2fs package
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
> > On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
>
> >> Meh. "Unix" certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
> >> useful distinction. I guess we could use "ext2" but that would j
Hi Tom,
On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matteo Beccati writes:
>> On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I do not have a machine on which to try --with-bsd-uuid, so it's
>>> possible I broke that portion of Matteo's patch. Would someone try
>>> that case on a FreeBSD box?
>
>> I've tes
Matteo Beccati writes:
> On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do not have a machine on which to try --with-bsd-uuid, so it's
>> possible I broke that portion of Matteo's patch. Would someone try
>> that case on a FreeBSD box?
> I've tested on NetBSD i386 and --with-bsd-uuid worked out of th
Hi Tom,
On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've verified functionality of this patch on these scenarios:
>
> (1) --with-ossp-uuid on RHEL6, using uuid-1.6.1-10.el6.x86_64
> (2) --with-linux-uuid on RHEL6, using libuuid-2.17.2-12.14.el6_5.x86_64
> (3) --with-linux-uuid on OS X 10.9.3, Intel
>
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
>> Meh. "Unix" certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
>> useful distinction. I guess we could use "ext2" but that would just
>> confuse most people.
On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
>
> Meh. "Unix" certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
> useful distinction. I guess we could use "ext2" but that would just
> confuse most people.
--with-uuid?
>> Which one is
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
>> gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
>> attached revision of Matteo's patch, I called them --with-ossp-uuid
>>
On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
> gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
> attached revision of Matteo's patch, I called them --with-ossp-uuid
> (the existing switch name), --wit
I wrote:
> Matteo Beccati writes:
>> On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati writes:
> * Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
> falls back to Linux and BSD variants
>>> Imo should be th
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-25 <12508.1401045...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
>> the patch, this nukes the "uuid-ossp" extension entirely in favor of a
>> new extension "uuid" (providing the same SQL functions with a di
Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-25 <12508.1401045...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Matteo Beccati writes:
> > here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
> > proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
>
> Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
> the patc
Matteo Beccati writes:
> On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Matteo Beccati writes:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD variants
>> Imo should be the other way round
On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Matteo Beccati writes:
>>> I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
>>
>>> * Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
>>> falls back to Linux and BSD vari
On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matteo Beccati writes:
> > I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
>
> > * Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
> > falls back to Linux and BSD variants
Imo should be the other way round.
> >
Matteo Beccati writes:
> I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
> * Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
> falls back to Linux and BSD variants
> * md5.o and sha1.o are linked only when not using the ossp library
> * fixed a bug in the v1mc
Hi Tom,
thanks for the feedback.
On 25/05/2014 21:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matteo Beccati writes:
>> here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
>> proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
>
> Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreadi
Matteo Beccati writes:
> here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
> proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
the patch, this nukes the "uuid-ossp" extension entirely in favor of a
new ex
43 matches
Mail list logo
