Doh, you're right ... but on third thought, what happens with a pattern
containing %_? If % tries to advance bytewise then we'll be trying to
apply NextChar in the middle of a data character, and bad things ensue.
Right, when you have '_' after a '%' you need to make sure the '%'
advances
Hi Neil,
On 5/18/07, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-14-05 at 22:58 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
Has a revised version of this patch been submitted?
In the absence of a revised patch, I can finish the feature myself, but
I won't get the free cycles until after PGCon. I can
I forgot to attach the program used to generate test data. Here it is.
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a new version of Simon's scan-resistant buffer manager
patch. It's not ready for committing yet because of a small issue I
found this morning (* see bottom), but here's a status update.
Hi all,
With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
Regards.
--
Guillaume.
!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very comfortable with this part
of the code, but nevertheless here are my comments:
I
On 5/21/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very comfortable with this
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On 5/21/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Attached is an updated patch.
This patch appears to add a nonexistent test to the regression schedules.
I must have forgotten to cvs add it. Sorry.
Also, I forgot to mention previously there is an unrelated trivial hunk in
here.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why are we doing that CHAREQ?
To avoid the cost of the recursive call, just like it says.
If it succeeds we'll
just do it again when we recurse, I think.
If you move the other two cases then you could advance t and p before
entering the
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 00:01 schrieb Jeff Davis:
Here is the latest version of my patch that's revised according to my
discussions with Heikki and Simon:
This patch was apparently done against 8.2.4, but it doesn't apply to CVS
head.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Guillaume Lelarge [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a dependency
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 15:21 schrieb Gregory Stark:
Also, I forgot to mention previously there is an unrelated trivial hunk in
here. I noticed we free the password early, presumably for security
reasons,
No, to save memory.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:17:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a dependency on
DTK_ISODOW in the first place. That looks more like a copypaste
error than something intentional. Michael?
It is, somehow it slipped through. Just removed it.
Michael
--
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 16:03 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 00:01 schrieb Jeff Davis:
Here is the latest version of my patch that's revised according to my
discussions with Heikki and Simon:
This patch was apparently done against 8.2.4, but it doesn't apply to CVS
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why are we doing that CHAREQ?
To avoid the cost of the recursive call, just like it says.
If it succeeds we'll
just do it again when we recurse, I think.
If you move the other two cases then you could advance t
Am Dienstag, 10. April 2007 14:01 schrieb Nikolay Samokhvalov:
Here is new version that adds following changes:
4. Function is now strict, per discussion.
5. Return empty array in case when XPath expression detects nothing
(previously, NULL was returned in such case), per discussion.
6.
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Does the format not include the per-process line number?
It does not, and I never noticed that under the prefix
possibilities---never seemed import before! The combination of
timestamp/pid/line (%t %p %l) looks like a useful and unique key here,
I really appreciate for the modification.
I also believe XLOG_NOOP is cool to maintains XLOG format consistent.
I'll continue to write a code to produce incremental log record from
the full page writes as well as too maintain CRC, XLOOG_NOOP and
other XLOG locations,I also found that you've
18 matches
Mail list logo
