Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 11:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, how do you force the stats collector to 'on' before the test is
> > run?
>
> The stats collector is on by default (of course, that doesn't apply to
> "make installcheck"...)
Oh I see now, nice. I didn't realize you co
Christoph Dalitz wrote:
> @Bruce:
> ---
>
> Could you please already remove the WIN32_CONSOLE and OemToChar/CharToOem stuff
> from psql? Sorry for the inconvenience generated by my ignorance.
Removed. Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PRO
I haven't seen a notice that Bruce noticed this patch I sent across general as
part of a rambling thread of mine. There again, I'm not exactly up to date with
all my email so could easily have missed it. However, in light of the beta3
notice I'm sending it to the correct list now.
Fixes simple bu
"Nigel J. Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't seen a notice that Bruce noticed this patch I sent across
> general as part of a rambling thread of mine.
Not sure why he missed it, but I've applied it to CVS tip. Thanks.
regards, tom lane
-
Bruce Momjian writes:
> o adds a configure option --without-spinlocks to allow
> non-spinlock compiles
--disable-spinlocks please.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensi
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I hadn't seen this --- not sure why.
Probably because it was in a rambling thread consisting mostly of posts by
myself.
Thanks for applying it chaps.
Nigel
(Sheesh, all this fuss for a one character change :)
---(end of
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > I hadn't seen this --- not sure why.
>
> Probably because it was in a rambling thread consisting mostly of posts by
> myself.
>
> Thanks for applying it chaps.
I might have assumed the tsearch guys had it handled now
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Prompted by confusion over Itanium/Opterion, I have written a patch to
> improve the way we define spinlocks for platforms and cpu's. It
> basically decouples the OS from the CPU spinlock code. In almost all
> cases, the spinlock code cares only about the compiler and CPU,
I hadn't seen this --- not sure why.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I can make the change, but --without seemed to more closely match
> because it was like readline where you didn't have it, and had to say so
> specifically. I don't see how we can say --disable because this is case
> were we clearly don't have spinlocks to enable, no?
./c
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > o adds a configure option --without-spinlocks to allow
> > non-spinlock compiles
>
> --disable-spinlocks please.
I can make the change, but --without seemed to more closely match
because it was like readline where you didn't have it
Applied by Tom.
---
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a notice that Bruce noticed this patch I sent across general as
> part of a rambling thread of mine. There again, I'm not exactly up to date with
> all my email
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I might have assumed the tsearch guys had it handled now that they have
> CVS access.
Good point. I'd completely forgotten I was also expecting them to pick it up,
principally because it needs to be applied to the version for running with a
7.
OK. You'da boss. :-)
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I can make the change, but --without seemed to more closely match
> > because it was like readline where you didn't have it, and had to say so
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
could we put something in the various port files to standardize this? ie.
in unixware.h, add somethinglike:
#if
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> fall back to semaphores. That's what ha
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> > when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> > it seems like a good time to get it working.
>
> Well, as long as you're prepared
--On Friday, September 12, 2003 00:06:49 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've already sent a whine-a-gram to the compiler guys at SCO.
Prolly you thought of this already, but: getting them to *add*
an implicit #define of __i386__ should be pl
--On Friday, September 12, 2003 00:00:43 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Please, only the first two. Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.
that's reasonable. At least until 64-bi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> it seems like a good time to get it working.
Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> > __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
>
> could we put something in the various port files to standardize this? ie.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it BREAKS UnixWare (If y'all=
> > =20
> > care).
>
> Unfixably? Or just a small oversight?
Updated patch now works on Unixware.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://ca
Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it BREAKS UnixWare (If y'all=
> > =20
> > care).
>
> Unfixably? Or just a small oversight?
>
> I'm actually not worried about platforms that are actively being tested.
> It's the stuff
--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:13:54 -0400 Tom Lane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it BREAKS UnixWare (If
y'all= =20
care).
Unfixably? Or just a small oversight?
I'm actually not worried about platform
"Nigel J. Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I might have assumed the tsearch guys had it handled now that they have
>> CVS access.
> Good point. I'd completely forgotten I was also expecting them to pick it up,
Yes, I'd also passed it over because
25 matches
Mail list logo
