From the Javadoc of java.sql.Blob byte[] getBytes(long pos, int length)
throws SQLException;
* @param pos the ordinal position of the first byte in the
*BLOB value to be extracted; the first byte is at
*position 1
pqsql driver assumes the position starts from 0
Patch attache
The attached patch implements new semaphore and shared memory
mechanisms for POSIX systems.
Semaphores are implemented using unnamed pipes. A semaphore is
incremented by writing a single character to the pipe, and decremented
by reading a single character. The only semaphore operation we can't
r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) writes:
> The attached patch implements new semaphore and shared memory
> mechanisms for POSIX systems.
I'm afraid we'll have to reject this out of hand:
> +bool
> +PGSharedMemoryIsInUse(unsigned long id1, unsigned long id2)
> +{
> +/
PostgreSQL 8.0.3, to be released in a few days, will have a bcc32.mak
that will compile using Borland, and a DLL fix for WSACleanup(). Would
you please test that version?
Thanks.
---
Gabor Berenyi wrote:
> Hello Bruce and
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.
---
Ma
Bruce Momjian writes:
> 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.
Neil applied all those some time ago, no?
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:49:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > 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 ap
Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:49:43AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > 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 co
Already applied.
---
Marko Kreen wrote:
> Here are various updates for pgcrypto that
> I've been sitting on for some time now.
>
> They should be applied in order, but otherwise
> they stand alone - code should in working s
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not acceptable in the slightest, because it offers no protection
> against the situation where the old postmaster has crashed but there are
> still live backends. If a new postmaster and new backends are allowed
> to start in that situation, using a n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) writes:
> You can use file-backed shared memory instead. You need a directory
> which you know is writeable and unique to this instance, on a file
> system with enough free space to accomodate the full size of the
> shared memory segment.
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The check we need is "are there any other processes (still) attached to
> this shmem" and AFAIK that is not available in the mmap API. Do you
> know how to get it?
You can hack something up with fcntl() locks. If a process has a
shared lock on the shm file,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The check we need is "are there any other processes (still) attached to
>> this shmem" and AFAIK that is not available in the mmap API. Do you
>> know how to get it?
> You can hack somethi
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Applied.
Now that I've had a chance to look at it, this patch is thoroughly
broken. Problems observed in a quick review:
1. It doesn't work at all for non-default tablespaces: it will
claim that every file in such a tablespace is stale. T
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'd view this as a postmaster state that propagates to backends.
> > Probably you'd enable it by means of a postmaster option, and the
> > only way to get out of it is to shut down and restart the postmaster
> > without the option.
>
> I've created
Bruce Momjian writes:
> It seems server_read_only is the same as default_transaction_read_only
> except it can't be changed.
I thought the TODO item was for a low-level read-only option, suitable
for trying to look at a corrupted database or run off a read-only volume.
This is very far from being
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > It seems server_read_only is the same as default_transaction_read_only
> > except it can't be changed.
>
> I thought the TODO item was for a low-level read-only option, suitable
> for trying to look at a corrupted database or run off a read-only volume.
Applied.
---
pgman wrote:
>
> Here is an updated version of this patch, with documentation changes.
>
> I have already updated the gram.y comment you suggested.
>
>
Hi,
I am accelerating the transfer of resultset
from backend to client using the zlib library.
While coding, I was surprised that
magic number 8192 (which is defined as PQ_BUFFER_SIZE in
backend/libpq/pqcomm.c) are written into the code
in interfaces/libpq/fe-misc.
I thought the magic number
Hideyuki Kawashima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While coding, I was surprised that
> magic number 8192 (which is defined as PQ_BUFFER_SIZE in
> backend/libpq/pqcomm.c) are written into the code
> in interfaces/libpq/fe-misc.
AFAICS the uses of 8192 in fe-misc.c have no relationship to
PQ_BUFFE
Thanks for teaching me about 8192 in fe-misc.c.
I recognized the 8192 in fe-misc.c does not relate to PQ_BUFFER_SIZE
in pqcomm.c, but I am pleased if someone revises the magic number.
And I am sorry for my incorrect format patch.
>From next time, I will submit my proposition as "diff -c" patches.
21 matches
Mail list logo
