Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's an updated version of the phantom command ids patch.
Applied with some revisions (notably, renaming 'em to "combo" command IDs).
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I found one more subtle safety issue. The array and hash table for
> phantom command ids is dynamically grown when HeapTupleHeaderSetCmax is
> called. Unfortunately, since HeapTupleHeaderSetCmax is used inside a
> critical sections, running out of
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Heikki, I found something odd in your patch. You had an extra
> > parentheses at the end of the line in the orginal and new version of the
> > patch (attached). I removed it before applying, but I just wanted to
> > confirm this was
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Per Tom's suggestion, I replaced the function cache code in fmgr.c and
> > > similar code in plperl.c, pltcl.c, plpgsql/pl_comp.c and plpython.c to
> > > use xmin+tid instead of xmin+cmin for the up-to-dateness check. I don't
> > > have any tcl, perl or python test ca
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki, I found something odd in your patch. You had an extra
> parentheses at the end of the line in the orginal and new version of the
> patch (attached). I removed it before applying, but I just wanted to
> confirm this was OK.
Please do not apply t
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Heikki, I found something odd in your patch. You had an extra
> > parentheses at the end of the line in the orginal and new version of the
> > patch (attached). I removed it before applying, but I just wanted to
> > confirm this was OK.
>
> Lo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki, I found something odd in your patch. You had an extra
parentheses at the end of the line in the orginal and new version of the
patch (attached). I removed it before applying, but I just wanted to
confirm this was OK.
Looking at the CVS history, it looks like Tom c
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of the phantom command ids patch.
> >
> > I found one more subtle safety issue. The array and hash table for
> > phantom command ids is dynamically grown when HeapTupleHeaderSetCmax is
> > called. Unfortunately, since
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Here's an updated version of the phantom command ids patch.
>
> I found one more subtle safety issue. The array and hash table for
> phantom command ids is dynamically grown when HeapTupleHeaderSetCmax is
> called. Unfortunately, since HeapTupleHeaderSetCmax is used i
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
> >>> nothing particularly "phantom" about them, seeing they get onto disk.
> >>> Can anyone think of a better n
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
>>> nothing particularly "phantom" about them, seeing they get onto disk.
>>> Can anyone think of a better name? The best I can do offh
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>I think the patch is ready. Please remove the PHANTOMCID_DEBUG define
> >>and ifdef blocks before applying.
> >
> >BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
> >nothing parti
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think the patch is ready. Please remove the PHANTOMCID_DEBUG define
>>> and ifdef blocks before applying.
>>
>> BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
>> nothing particu
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think the patch is ready. Please remove the PHANTOMCID_DEBUG define
and ifdef blocks before applying.
BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
nothing particularly "phantom" about them, seeing they get
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the patch is ready. Please remove the PHANTOMCID_DEBUG define
> and ifdef blocks before applying.
BTW, I don't care much for the terminology "phantom cid" ... there's
nothing particularly "phantom" about them, seeing they get onto disk.
Can
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
He
16 matches
Mail list logo
