Alvaro Herrera írta:
I don't think
my $int64passbyval = "(?($real64 = 1)t|f)";
works. Perhaps
my $int64passbyval = $real64 ? 't' : 'f';
Thanks. Modified patch attached.
Stupid question follows. Now that float4 is passed by value
unconditionally, is it worth modifying the
I don't think
my $int64passbyval = "(?($real64 = 1)t|f)";
works. Perhaps
my $int64passbyval = $real64 ? 't' : 'f';
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
pg84-passedbyval-v4.patch.gz
Descri
Tom Lane wrote:
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory Stark írta:
1) Please don't include configure in your patch. I don't know why it's checked
into CVS but it is so that means manually removing it from any patch. It's
usually a huge portion of the diff so it's worth r
Tom Lane wrote:
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory Stark írta:
1) Please don't include configure in your patch. I don't know why it's checked
into CVS but it is so that means manually removing it from any patch. It's
usually a huge portion of the diff so it's worth r
Zoltan Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark írta:
>> 1) Please don't include configure in your patch. I don't know why it's
>> checked
>> into CVS but it is so that means manually removing it from any patch. It's
>> usually a huge portion of the diff so it's worth removing.
> N
Gregory Stark írta:
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Gregory Stark írta:
4) Your problems with tsearch and timestamp etc raise an interesting
problem.
We don't need to mark this in pg_control because it's a purely a run-time
issue
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
>> Gregory Stark írta:
>>> 4) Your problems with tsearch and timestamp etc raise an interesting
>>> problem.
>>>We don't need to mark this in pg_control because it's a purely a run-time
>>>issue and doesn't affect
Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
Gregory Stark írta:
4) Your problems with tsearch and timestamp etc raise an interesting
problem.
We don't need to mark this in pg_control because it's a purely a
run-time
issue and doesn't affect on-disk storage. However it does affect ABI
compatibility with
Gregory Stark írta:
Ok, ignore my previous message. I've read the patch now and that's not an
issue. The old code path is not commented out, it's #ifdef'd conditionally on
HAVE_LONG_INT_64 is right (well it seems right, it's a bit hard to tell in
patch form).
A few comments:
1) Please don't inc
