At 2021-04-08 09:26:22 +0200, t...@hamartun.priv.no wrote:
>
> Something changed in NetBSD-current last year, to make it no longer
> safe to assume that communication over a Unix domain stream socket
> would make the entire contents of a write() available to read() on
> the other side in one go.
At 2021-04-08 09:26:22 +0200, t...@hamartun.priv.no wrote:
>
> If I'm right, perhaps instead of closing the connection to PostgreSQL
> when this happens, it should just push back the incomplete data, and
> wait for more, with a suitable timeout?
Thanks for the analysis. I'll have a look to see
At 2021-02-06 18:46:53 +0100, t...@hamartun.priv.no wrote:
>
> > On a hunch, I made the following change, and, so far, it seems to work:
>
> Spoke too soon. It's still happening.
Can you get a tcpdump of the failing session, perhaps? I'd like to see
how exactly the message is "malformed".
--
At 2018-05-31 21:58:08 +0200, a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote:
>
> Patch most welcome. db/postgres.cpp line near line 693.
I pushed a couple of patches to address this.
-- ams
At 2018-04-05 14:20:21 -0500, f...@feld.me wrote:
>
> core/md5.cpp:55:5: error: 'register' storage class specifier is deprecated
> and incompatible with C++17 [-Werror,-Wdeprecated-register]
> register uint32 t;
> ^
I think we can do without those 'register' specifiers, so I
At 2017-02-15 11:20:51 +0100, axel@chaos1.de wrote:
>
> Any chance to see this patch on github?
Hm, odd that it didn't get pushed already. Pushed now.
-- Abhijit
At 2017-01-09 12:36:23 -0600, f...@feld.me wrote:
>
> C++ build/clang/server/tlsthread.o
> server/tlsthread.cpp:100:19: error: implicit conversion from 'long' to
> 'int' changes value from 2168458239 to -2126509057
> [-Werror,-Wconstant-conversion]
> | SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2
>
At 2014-07-07 14:33:56 +0100, nss...@networksystemssolutions.co.uk wrote:
I can gz and attach it if that's OK.
Please attach as text, no need to gzip. Also, I don't think there's any
problem with posting it to the list (for review). Just mention in the
Subject that it's a work in progress.
--
This was the only message I found that was rejected by the list
software while it was… indisposed. If anyone else posted in the
last couple of days and didn't see the message on-list, please
repost. Sorry for the inconvenience.
-- ams
At 2013-01-10 21:54:00 +0100, j...@rilk.com wrote:
I have a problem to compile the version from the 8 january
HEAD seems to build correctly. pull again?
-- ams
[This was sent off-list and forwarded to me to resend to the list. It
wasn't signed, but I assume from context that it's from Usman.]
Thank you for your feedback.
Arnt, Mark, Martin,
Backup is not my concern for not storing attachments in db. IMHO dbs
are not meant for storing most
At 2012-10-28 08:50:44 +, ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com wrote:
Abhijit,
Is there any update on this?
No, but I'm working my way through the changes. I'm afraid it's taking
me some time to wrap my head around them.
For the moment, I've reverted the commit in master and pushed a new
(hey Arnt, if you're busy, post some notes and maybe someone else can
finish it)
I'm looking at it now. I don't think it'll be finished quickly, but I'll
try to get HEAD building again soon, at least. After I review the code,
I'll post an explanation here and we can discuss it.
-- ams
This is just a notice that we're going to land some major changes soon,
and that git HEAD may be broken for a while. I'll write again when it's
safe to test.
-- ams
At 2012-07-31 22:50:43 +0200, por...@froglogic.com wrote:
The attached patch is absolutely NOT tested. Is there any test
suite for these classes?
334275 aspects of 178098 tests in 80 contexts; 0 failures
(Thanks, applied.)
-- ams
15 matches
Mail list logo
