Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So this patch was by no stretch of the imagination ready to apply,
> >> but you did it anyway.
>
> > Right. What is your next question?
>
> Perhaps "why is the buildfarm failing" would be appropriate.
Yes, that
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps "why is the buildfarm failing" would be appropriate.
> Yes, that is appropriate, though it seems Neil's cleanup of the patch
> has fixed it now. I see only a single stats failure and an initdb
> failure in the buildfarm, neith
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nah, it was a false alarm: I was looking at the first post-patch report,
> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mongoose&dt=2006-07-02%2003:30:01
> but apparently mongoose had managed to pick up a partially-updated
> snapshot. The later reports (
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Perhaps "why is the buildfarm failing" would be appropriate.
>
> > Yes, that is appropriate, though it seems Neil's cleanup of the patch
> > has fixed it now. I see only a single stats failure and an initdb
> > f
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patch applied. Thanks.
Thank you for applying, but sorry, my patch has some incompletions.
1. A debug code is left. Assert() and if-test are redundant.
2. Add a comment on the average FSM request size. Now, the size
contains not only the size o
I thought of that but I assume we were not accepting user-supplied
identifiers for this --- that this was only for application use. Am I
wrong?
Well, yes the plan was to accept user-supplied identifiers...
If you insist on a practical example, I can certainly imagine someone
thinking it'd be
Hang on a second. Has someone considered the encoding issues this might
suffer from, same as PQescapeString? I remember we discussed it briefly
and I mentioned it's outta my league to prove one way or the other...
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
TODO item done for 8.2:
*
I am thinking this patch needs to be applied, and the #ifdef test
changed to WIN32 so both MinGW and MSVC use the changed structure
ordering.
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
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you for applying, but sorry, my patch has some incompletions.
I'm busy reviewing/reworking this patch, and will deal with these items.
> 2. Add a comment on the average FSM request size. Now, the size
> contains not only the size of tupl
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hang on a second. Has someone considered the encoding issues this might
> suffer from, same as PQescapeString?
That was the point I raised when I saw the commit.
My advice is we shouldn't have PQescapeIdentifier at all.
PQescapeIdentifierCon
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Nah, it was a false alarm: I was looking at the first post-patch report,
>> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mongoose&dt=2006-07-02%2003:30:01
>> but apparently mongoose had managed to pick up a parti
11 matches
Mail list logo
