Robert Haas escribió:
So, does that mean we're good to go?
Looks fine to me ...
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:10 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.comwrote:
I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was
just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:51 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I've attached a re-based version of this.
I don't see any compelling reason not to commit this. Does anyone
wish to object?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:51 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I've attached a re-based version of this.
I don't see any compelling reason not to commit this. Does anyone
wish to object?
I think a blanket substitution of places that currently have %s might
On 2013-10-30 10:52:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:51 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I've attached a re-based version of this.
I don't see any compelling reason not to commit this. Does anyone
wish to object?
I think a
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-10-30 10:52:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:51 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've attached a re-based version of this.
I don't see any compelling reason not to commit this. Does
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Andres Freund escribió:
On 2013-10-30 10:52:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:51 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've attached a re-based
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was
just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version
0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
The macro for test 4 was as follows:
#define appendStringInfoStringConst(**buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
(s), sizeof(s)-1)
If that makes any difference in
On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 21:50 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
Also on making the changes I noticed a possible small bug in the code
that could cause a crash if for some reason a translation contained a
%s. I know it is an unlikely scenario, never-the-less here is a patch
to fix it.
There are
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote:
I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was
just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version
0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
The macro for test 4 was as follows:
#define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
(s), sizeof(s)-1)
If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we should just do:
#define appendStringInfoString(buf, s)
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
The macro for test 4 was as follows:
#define appendStringInfoStringConst(**buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
(s), sizeof(s)-1)
If that makes any difference in
On 2013-09-28 14:11:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
The macro for test 4 was as follows:
#define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
(s), sizeof(s)-1)
If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we should
14 matches
Mail list logo
