On 21/07/15 15:03, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
Long, sorry.
No problem. The whole topic is a bit of a mess.
On 20/07/15 18:00, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 20/07/15 14:15, Tim Bunc
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> Long, sorry.
No problem. The whole topic is a bit of a mess.
> On 20/07/15 18:00, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> >>On 20/07/15 14:15, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >>
> >>I think that w
Long, sorry.
On 20/07/15 18:00, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 20/07/15 14:15, Tim Bunce wrote:
I think that would work for me - I'm happy to test it our here if you want to
give it a go.
IIRC, when this was last discussed the problem is
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
>
> I also noticed something I should have seen before: dbd_st_rows() is
> defined as returning an int. I _think_ it would be safe to change the
> definition to returning a
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 02:54:53PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> On 20/07/15 14:15, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> I think that would work for me - I'm happy to test it our here if you want to
> give it a go.
>
> IIRC, when this was last discussed the problem is that some drivers
> might not set DBIc_RO
On 20/07/15 14:15, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 08:55:40AM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
On 19/07/15 15:41, Tim Bunce wrote:
Please also see the issue I reported in DBI back in 2012:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=81911
I had to add various workarounds and a warning to
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 08:55:40AM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote:
> On 19/07/15 15:41, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> Please also see the issue I reported in DBI back in 2012:
>
> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=81911
>
> I had to add various workarounds and a warning to DBD::ODBC.
Ah, thanks f
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:39:59PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > Internally the DBI has a DBIc_ROW_COUNT(sth) macro that has an IV type.
> > That's a signed int that would be 64 bits on most modern systems.
> > On many of those systems the pl
On 19/07/15 15:41, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:46:35AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
Well, this contains lots more light! ...
-> dbd_st_execute for 03fdf4e0
parse_params statement
SELECT c.change_id ...
Binding para
On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Internally the DBI has a DBIc_ROW_COUNT(sth) macro that has an IV type.
> That's a signed int that would be 64 bits on most modern systems.
> On many of those systems the plain int type might be 32 bits.
>
> I've just pushed an experimental change
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:46:35AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > Well, this contains lots more light! ...
> >
> >>> -> dbd_st_execute for 03fdf4e0
> parse_params statement
> >>>SELECT c.change_id ...
> >
> >>> Binding paramete
On Jul 16, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Well, this contains lots more light! ...
>
>>> -> dbd_st_execute for 03fdf4e0
parse_params statement
>>>SELECT c.change_id ...
>
>>> Binding parameters: SELECT c.change_id
>
>>>--> do_error
>>> Out of sort memory, consider i
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:49:45AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > I can't see anything obvious from this trace. Come back with a level 4
> > trace and hopefully that'll shed sufficient light.
>
> Here we go.
>
> > $ DBI_TRACE=4 sqitch status
On 15/07/15 18:49, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
I can't see anything obvious from this trace. Come back with a level 4
trace and hopefully that'll shed sufficient light.
Here we go.
I presume you saw the
Out of sort memory, consider increasing ser
On Jul 14, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I can't see anything obvious from this trace. Come back with a level 4
> trace and hopefully that'll shed sufficient light.
Here we go.
> $ DBI_TRACE=4 sqitch status
> DBI 1.630-ithread default trace level set to 0x0/4 (pid 10670 pi 2603010)
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:53:43PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>DBIers,
>Got a complaint about a “fetch() without execute()” error. Asked for a
> trace, got this. Looks like
>it’s coming from selectrow_hashref()? That shouldn’t happen, right?
>
> $ DBI_TRACE=1 sqitch status
T
DBIers,
Got a complaint about a “fetch() without execute()” error. Asked for a trace,
got this. Looks like it’s coming from selectrow_hashref()? That shouldn’t
happen, right?
> $ DBI_TRACE=1 sqitch status
> DBI 1.630-ithread default trace level set to 0x0/1 (pid 3381 pi ed2010)
> at DBI.pm
17 matches
Mail list logo