On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:23:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
As I pondered this, I felt it would do better to solve a different problem.
The rm -rf invocations presumably crept in to reduce peak disk usage.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:23:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
As I pondered this, I felt it would do better to solve a different problem.
The rm -rf
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:59:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
Solaris 10 ships Perl 5.8.4, and RHEL 5.11 ships Perl 5.8.8. Therefore,
Perl
installations lacking
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:59:55PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
Solaris 10 ships Perl 5.8.4, and RHEL 5.11 ships Perl 5.8.8. Therefore,
Perl
installations lacking this File::Path feature will receive vendor support
for
years to
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
Solaris 10 ships Perl 5.8.4, and RHEL 5.11 ships Perl 5.8.8. Therefore, Perl
installations lacking this File::Path feature will receive vendor support for
years to come. Replacing the use of keep_root with rmtree+mkdir will add 2-10
lines of
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
http://perldoc.perl.org/File/Path.html
With this formulation:
remove_tree($tempdir, {keep_root = 1});
Does Perl 5.8 have this?
Yes, it does.
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/NWCLARK/perl-5.8.9/lib/File/Path.pm
Michael Paquier wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed that src/bin/initdb/t/001_initdb.pl uses directly rm via a
system() call like that:
system_or_bail rm -rf '$tempdir'/*;
This way of doing is not portable, particularly on platforms that do
not have rm like... Windows where the equivalent is del.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Castoroides has 5.8.4. Oops.
WUT.
Yeah, eh? Anyway I don't think it matters much: just don't enable TAP
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:29:36PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Castoroides has 5.8.4. Oops.
WUT.
Yeah, eh? Anyway I don't think it matters much: just don't enable TAP
tests
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:25:33AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
http://perldoc.perl.org/File/Path.html
With this formulation:
remove_tree($tempdir, {keep_root = 1});
Does Perl 5.8 have this?
Yes, it
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
http://perldoc.perl.org/File/Path.html
With this formulation:
remove_tree($tempdir, {keep_root = 1});
Does Perl 5.8 have this?
Yes, it does.
David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Castoroides has 5.8.4. Oops.
WUT.
Yeah, eh? Anyway I don't think it matters much: just don't enable TAP
tests on machines with obsolete Perl. I think this is fine since 5.8's
latest
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Castoroides has 5.8.4. Oops.
WUT.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to
see
the Datum typedef to be
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
break machines without uintptr_t.
There is AC_TYPE_UINTPTR_T, so that should be easy.
--
Sent
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
break machines without uintptr_t.
There is
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 02:24, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
with it. I think the official support for this (SDK compiler
integrated with VC++
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:35, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
with it. I think
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core of a change like
this.
Do
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
Win64 system, which Dave Page and Magnus already have access to, if it
would be useful..
I haven't got
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
Win64 system, which Dave Page and
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations
Tsutomu Yamada tsut...@sraoss.co.jp writes:
Yes, I have read through the discusion but it seems somewhat faded
out. This is because no platform other than Windows has 64bit
pointer issues IMO. I think using intptr_t is cleaner and will bring
more portability. Moreover it will solve Windows
On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
The problem with this is that it's barely the tip of the iceberg.
One point I recall is that there are lots of places where %lu is
assumed to be the correct format to print Datums with.
Hmm. I tried this out. typedef Datum to be long long int
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
If it were
actually possible to support Win64 with only a couple of dozen lines
of changes, we would have done it long since.
Possibly, or everyone was too confused and didn't know where to start.
Well,
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations using long is not
portable, for example on Windows
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Can I declare a struct in a function's declaration section? Something
like this:
static void
foobar(void)
{
struct foo {
Oid foo;
int bar;
};
struct foo baz;
baz.foo = InvalidOid;
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Can I declare a struct in a function's declaration section? Something
like this:
static void
foobar(void)
{
struct foo {
Oid foo;
int bar;
};
struct foo baz;
baz.foo = InvalidOid;
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Can I declare a struct in a function's declaration section?
It works fine with Sun Studio 11.
AFAICT it's required by the original KR C book.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Can I declare a struct in a function's declaration section?
It works fine with Sun Studio 11.
AFAICT it's required by the original KR C book.
IIRC there's something odd about the scope of the
Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Can I declare a struct in a function's declaration section?
It works fine with Sun Studio 11.
AFAICT it's required by the original KR C book.
IIRC there's
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC there's something odd about the scope of the declared struct label.
Something like it previously extended to the end of the file but post-ANSI was
limited to the scope it's declared in (including very limited scopes where it
would be useless such
39 matches
Mail list logo
