> > > Why not use an anonymous pipe to send data from the parent to the
> > > child process?
> >
> > Doesn't that require the postmaster to stay around to feed that
> > information into the pipe or can the postmaster just shove the data
> > and continue on, and how do the old pipes get cleaned
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.
---
Ron Mayer wrote:
> > -Original Messag
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating certain things, and
patch removed, and p
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating c
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating certain things,
> > and patch removed, and patch readded. What is going on?
>
> I think the patch just added is OK, no?
I don't know, but earlier the identical patch was rejected by you.
---(end o
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating certain things,
> > > and patch removed, and patch readded. What is going on?
> >
> > I think the patch just added is OK, no?
>
> I don't know, but earlier the identical patch was rejected by yo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating certain
> > > > things, and patch removed, and patch readded. What is going
> > > > on?
> > >
> > > I think the patch just added is OK, no?
> >
> > I don't know, but ea
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > I keep reading about open issues, and deprecating certain
> > > > > things, and patch removed, and patch readded. What is going
> > > > > on?
> > > >
> > > > I think the patch just added
Peter indicated it was not valid docbook and wanted only the relivant
parts, but it looked OK to me. Peter?
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.
-
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.
---
David Fetter wrote:
> Kind people,
>
> I
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > I hope this one actually does what Tom said. It appears to work :)
>
> Probably, but that does not seem to be the right place in the
> documentation for this. The location you propose explains EXTRACT, and
> we should leave it at that.
His pat
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.
---
David Fetter wrote:
> Kind people,
>
> P
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > Please find enclosed a patch exemplifying typical use of the ARE
> > Class-Shorthand Escapes??. I believe it will help intrepid regex
> > users. :)
>
> If you want to explain something, it's normally better to create an
> example just for that po
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.
---
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> This patch is
Claudio Natoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch is the next step towards (re)allowing fork/exec.
I've included a few comments on the patch below. Unfortunately I only
had time to briefly look over the code...
Why did you change ShmemIndexLock from an LWLock to a spinlock?
The number of "
Neil Conway wrote:
> + /*
> + * The following need to be available to the read/write_backend_variables
> + * functions
> + */
> + extern XLogRecPtr RedoRecPtr;
> + extern XLogwrtResult LogwrtResult;
> + extern slock_t *ShmemLock;
> + extern slock_t *ShmemIndexLock;
> + extern void *ShmemIndexAll
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why did you change ShmemIndexLock from an LWLock to a spinlock?
That one I can answer --- it's a bootstrapping issue: we can't use
LWLocks until we have a PGProc (*MyProc), and we can't set that up
without looking in the ShmemIndex for the related data str
17 matches
Mail list logo
