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 is appropriate,
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=mongoosedt=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
failure in the
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 of
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
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 tuples,
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=mongoosedt=2006-07-02%2003:30:01
but apparently mongoose had managed to pick up a
