Tom Lane wrote:
Attached is a draft patch for the WAL-and-freezing issues we've been
discussing. This incorporates Heikki and Simon's work on providing
WAL-logging for tuple freezing actions and pg_clog truncation
respectively, and adds on several other things:
Looks good. Just a few notes:
T
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
> >>> it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm i
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch seems to make VACUUM FULL FREEZE combination valid again,
> which should be note in the docs.
Right, I haven't gotten around to fixing the VACUUM ref page yet but
this change is needed. This is really fallout from Alvaro's previous
cha
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking back in the archives, I note that one of the arguments for
>> making the server use relative paths everywhere was so that it'd be
>> robust against things like DBAs moving directories that cont
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking back in the archives, I note that one of the arguments for
> >> making the server use relative paths everywhere was so that it'd be
> >>
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure most people don't move live postmasters very frequently,
> plus it isn't clear to me why we should support the people that want
> that to do that, yet not the people who want the absolute-path option.
As already discussed upthread, anyone
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> provide a bad substitute for pwd.
That argument is conclusive. Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast
I have made some progress with what I think is needed to have two
interpreters for plperl. This is a lot harder than the pltcl case for
two reasons: 1. there are no restrictions on having 2 tcl interpreters,
and 2. tcl does not need to save and restore context as we have to do
with perl. I th
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 12:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we're probably better off to just forcibly remove the init file
> during post-recovery cleanup. The easiest place to do this might be
> BuildFlatFiles, which has to scan pg_database anyway ...
Patch enclosed.
Clean apply to HEAD, make
I wrote:
I have made some progress with what I think is needed to have two
interpreters for plperl. This is a lot harder than the pltcl case for
two reasons: 1. there are no restrictions on having 2 tcl
interpreters, and 2. tcl does not need to save and restore context as
we have to do wit
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 12:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we're probably better off to just forcibly remove the init file
>> during post-recovery cleanup. The easiest place to do this might be
>> BuildFlatFiles, which has to scan pg_database anyway .
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps use a PG_TRY construct?
At least for the existing code, this doesn't work well: the function
exits early via ereport(LOG) and then "return STATUS_ERROR;", so AFAICS
there isn't an easy way to simplify the existing error handling logic
vi
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps use a PG_TRY construct?
> At least for the existing code, this doesn't work well: the function
> exits early via ereport(LOG) and then "return STATUS_ERROR;", so AFAICS
> there isn't an easy way
I wrote:
> ... Not sure that
> this is actually a net win though, as a PANIC might well be considered a
> worse problem than a one-time leak of some LDAP state.
Come to think of it: either elog(ERROR) or a failure return from
CheckLDAPAuth is going to lead directly to backend exit, so the
whole
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Come to think of it: either elog(ERROR) or a failure return from
> CheckLDAPAuth is going to lead directly to backend exit, so the
> whole thing is pretty much a cosmetic issue anyway.
Thanks for the feedback. Patch applied, with an additional
On 10/13/06, Guillaume Lelarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
>
> There is an inconsistency here: 'IYYY' is the four-digit ISO year, 'IW'
> is the two-digit ISO week, but 'ID' would be the one-digit ISO
> day-of-the-week. I'm not sure we can fix that, but I wanted to poin
16 matches
Mail list logo
