Re: [PATCHES] HOT latest patch - version 8

2007-07-15 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: tried to test a bit on my Solaris 10 install(sun studio , 64bit build) but I'm hitting the following while trying to initdb a new cluster: I can't reproduce this error, but I found a bug that's likely causing it. The patch uses

[PATCHES] pg_dump --no-tablespaces patch

2007-07-15 Thread Gavin M. Roy
This is the patch I proposed on hackers to make pg_dump optionally ignore tablespaces. The patch is against 8.2.4. If I should be applying it to CVS head or what not, please let me know (along with any thoughts, concerns or issues). Gavin pg_dump-8.2.4-no-tablespace-option.patch Description:

Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump --no-tablespaces patch

2007-07-15 Thread Dave Page
Gavin M. Roy wrote: This is the patch I proposed on hackers to make pg_dump optionally ignore tablespaces. The patch is against 8.2.4. If I should be applying it to CVS head or what not, please let me know (along with any thoughts, concerns or issues). Hi Gavin, It should be against -head

Re: [PATCHES] Deferred RI trigger for non-key UPDATEs and subxacts

2007-07-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 00:12 +0100, Affan Salman wrote: With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the issue I reported here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php This should preclude optimizing away a deferred RI trigger if the

Re: [PATCHES] HOT latest patch - version 8

2007-07-15 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 16:22 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I have some suggestions which I'll post separately, I'm looking for ways to make the patch simpler and less invasive. We may want to put back some of this stuff, or come up with a more clever solution,

Re: [PATCHES] Deferred RI trigger for non-key UPDATEs and subxacts

2007-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the issue I reported here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php I don't think this is right. If the original tuple was inserted by a subtransaction of