On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 04:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Latest version, pitr_v5_2.patch...
>
> Reviewed and committed with some adjustments.
>
Wow! Thanks very much - you work fast.
I'll be re-testing later today.
> I see the following significant loose ends
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Super-minor nitpicking from just eyeing over the patch, not actually
> checking how it works.
Reviewing the own code the most obvious things are overlooked.
>
> This patch changes the error message for pg_signal_backend() to "only
> superuser may access generic file functio
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> * Documentation is, um, lacking. (One point in particular is that I
> >> inserted the recovery.conf.sample file into CVS, but did not fill in
> >> the patch's lack of attempt to install it anywhere.)
>
> > I figu
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It should certainly go to /share as a .sample file. I was thinking that
>> initdb should perhaps copy it into $PGDATA (still as .sample, not as
>> .conf!) so it'd be right there when you need it.
> I think /share is best.
Okay, we ag
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It should certainly go to /share as a .sample file. I was thinking that
> >> initdb should perhaps copy it into $PGDATA (still as .sample, not as
> >> .conf!) so it'd be right there when you need it.
>
> > I thin
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 05:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> code in Simon's original patch that would start bleating
Code that bleats? LOL :) (is that a new log level?)
Some of it was perhaps a little woolly
You've made my day, Simon Riggs (still laughing)
---(end of broadcast)
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> we need to check to see which one has a WAL eof-of-segment marker (we
> have on of those, right?).
No, we don't.
> I think I see a solution. We are going to create a file during backup so
> we know the wal offsets and xids. If we see that file, we know
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > we need to check to see which one has a WAL eof-of-segment marker (we
> > have on of those, right?).
>
> No, we don't.
>
> > I think I see a solution. We are going to create a file during backup so
> > we know the wal offsets and xid
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> OK,
>
> Here is another patch that fixes a stack of pg_dump bugs:
>
> * Fix help text ordering
>
> * Add back --set-session-authorization to pg_dumpall. Updat
Tom is reviewing this.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I have added the v2 version of this patch to the patch queue (attached).
> I agree with Tom that there is no need for regression tests for this
> feature and have removed
I have Peter reviewing this.
---
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Dear patchers,
>
>
> Please find attached another new version of a patch which provides a
> working infrastructure for pg extensions. I hope it addresses all of
>
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I had second thoughts about that and didn't do it in the committed
> >> patch, though it's certainly still open for debate.
>
> > How are we handling a crash during recovery?
>
> Retr
Okay, we agree on that part at least; I'll take care of it. If anyone
wants to argue for further copying during initdb, that can be added
later.
I reckon it should be copied into $PGDATA :) Otherwise, when I'm in a
panic at recovery time, I'd have to figure out where the heck my package
has ins
Kind people,
Please find enclosed a patch that matches the PL/Perl documentation
(fairly closely, I hope) to the current PL/Perl implementation.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Index: doc/src/sgml/
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Updated patch which leaves postmaster runnable after the syslogger
> terminated due to pipe problems.
Very nice. You did a nice trick of reading the log filenames into a
timestamp field:
count = sscanf(de->d_name, "%04d-%02d-%02d_%02d%02d%02d_%05d.log", &yea$
You
[ Previous patch discarded.]
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.
--
Does anyone have opinions on including this in 7.5? I see it first
appeared on July 6, six days after feature freeze.
---
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Attached is a patch against pg_dump version 7.4.3 that permits
> multiple "-t
I see one vote in favor of its inclusion on the grounds it is a bug not
to support multiple -t parameters. However, is someone objects I will
have to hold it for 7.6. It needs SGML doc additions which I will do
myself.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
I see one vote in favor of its inclusion on the grounds it is a bug not
to support multiple -t parameters. However, is someone objects I will
have to hold it for 7.6. It needs SGML doc additions which I will do
myself.
Well, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze,
even t
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze,
> even though it would be really useful for me :(
It would have been a lot easier to approve it if it'd arrived on June 30
rather than July 6 :-(. However, I do believe th
Well, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze,
even though it would be really useful for me :(
It would have been a lot easier to approve it if it'd arrived on June 30
rather than July 6 :-(. However, I do believe that David originally
submitted a slightly-too-late version
Yes, the reason it would be nice for me is that currently if you want to
dump two specific, related tables from your db, there's no way to do it
with pg_dump within the one transactions (ie. maintaining integrity). I
guess I'm in favour of -t -t but not -T depending on the complexity of
it. I
22 matches
Mail list logo
