"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since CVS updates are not atomic, it's hard to see how mirroring could be,
> unless you did something like disallow updates, mirror, allow updates. I
> suspect such a cure would be worse than the disease. This is such a rare
> event that I don't think
Tom Lane said:
> 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 m
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
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
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 (
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
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:
>> 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.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I ran pgindent on the tablecmds.c block of code, and cleaned up some
> > boolean assignments. There are a few XXX comments still in the code so
> > someone should look at those questions and either modify the code or
> > remove the co
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I ran pgindent on the tablecmds.c block of code, and cleaned up some
> boolean assignments. There are a few XXX comments still in the code so
> someone should look at those questions and either modify the code or
> remove the comments.
So this patch was
Patch applied. Thanks.
I ran pgindent on the tablecmds.c block of code, and cleaned up some
boolean assignments. There are a few XXX comments still in the code so
someone should look at those questions and either modify the code or
remove the comments.
-
I cleaned up the code and added some more documentation.
I think I've addressed all the concerns raised so far. Please tell me if I've
missed anything.
There were a few tangentially related issues that have come up that I think
are TODOs. I'm likely to tackle one or two of these next so I'm inte
12 matches
Mail list logo
