Re: [PATCHES] make 'PrivateRefCount' 32 bits wide

Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch changes PrivateRefCount and LocalRefCount in the bufmgr from > being arrays of long to arrays of int32, per earlier discussion. I just committed a bunch of changes in bufmgr --- hope I didn't tramp on your toes too much. > *** 176,184 >

Re: [PATCHES] make 'PrivateRefCount' 32 bits wide

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 23:20, Tom Lane wrote: > I just committed a bunch of changes in bufmgr --- hope I didn't tramp on > your toes too much. No problem, it didn't take too long to rediff. Besides, it was negligent of me not to get that work committed sooner. (BTW, I'm finished exams now, and I ho

[PATCHES] patches in the pipe?

> Patch applied. Thanks. I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted: (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a

Re: [PATCHES] psql: \d+ shows OID-ness

Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2004 08:44 schrieb Neil Conway: > nconway=# \d+ t1 > Table "public.t1" > Column | Type | Modifiers | Description > +--+---+- > Contains OIDs: yes "yes" and "no" are missing _( ) around it. ---(end of bro

Re: [PATCHES] contrib/dbmirror

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Patch applied. Thanks. > > Should this be backpatched to 7.4.X? The patch didn't apply cleanly to > that CVS branch. No. support for sequences was only introduced onto the 7.5 tree/head. Same with the support for transaction files. > > --

Re: [PATCHES] psql: \d+ shows OID-ness

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 04:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > "yes" and "no" are missing _( ) around it. Good catch! I fixed that and applied the patch. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCHES] patches in the pipe?

Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > > > I thought Peter didn't like it. > > He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question. > He may or may not agree, I don't know! > > > Would you repost a

Re: [PATCHES] patches in the pipe?

> > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > I thought Peter didn't like it. He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question. He may or may not agree, I don't know! > Would you repost and we can review it again. Ok. > > (2)

Re: [PATCHES] patches in the pipe?

Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > Patch applied. Thanks. > > I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted: > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions I thought Peter didn't like it. Would you repost and we can review it

Re: [PATCHES] PSQLRC environment variable.

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Applied. > > Replace rename it to psqlrc instead of psql.rc. Yea, I debated psql.rc and psqlrc, but chose psql.rc. If you like psqlrc better, that's fine with me. Patch attached and applied. -- Bruce Momjian| http:/

[PATCHES] patch in pipe?

Hi all, Talking about patches in pipe, I just want to see my patch in PostgreSQL. Nobody comments about it. It's about ALTER DATABASE foo OWNER TO bar. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-03/msg00440.php Regards, -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira euler (at) ufgnet.ufg.br Desenvolvedo

Re: [PATCHES] patch in pipe?

Yes, I have that. It is in my mailbox and I am working toward getting it in the queue. Thanks. --- Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Hi all, > > Talking about patches in pipe, I just want to see my patch in PostgreSQL. N