Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Bug fix for 7.4?
Well, the good news is that it seems to only hit the array code, and if
arrays are broken, the patch can't seem to make things worse. If it
causes new ecpg array problems, we will just have to fix it in 7.4.1.
---
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:16:53PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Yep. Send patch to patches list and/or have someone who is using this
> > functionality test it.
>
> Okay, see attachment.
>
> > ---
> >
> > Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > I just fixed a bug in ecpglib that caused it to misbehave for all
> > > internal array/vector types. They were treated like the external ones.
> > > So ecpg expected them to be listed as '{...}' which surely failed.
> > >
> > > However, this bug fix involves more code changes than I like to just
> > > commit into 7.4 at this point of the release. So the fixes are so far
> > > just committed to HEAD. On the other hand I don't like to release 7.4
> > > with this know bug.
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael Meskes
> Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
> ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I object to adding unnecessary complications like that. > > > Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics? The > > changes to the code were the addition of only one line. The rest of the > > patch was docs. > > My initial reaction was the same as Peter's, but after seeing the small > size of the patch I reconsidered. It seems to make sense that BEGIN > should be an exact synonym for START TRANSACTION. Let me give you my logic on this --- if people think of BEGIN and START TRANSACTION as the same, and they do \h begin, they aren't going to see the read only and isolation options for START TRANSACTION, and I doubt they are going to think to look there because they think they are the same. That's why I think it is good to add those clauses to BEGIN WORK/TRANSACTION. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[PATCHES] Small Doc Patch
Here's a patch that adds some text mentioning that RESTRICT is not deferrable to the create table reference page.Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml === RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.72 diff -c -r1.72 create_table.sgml *** doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml 9 Sep 2003 18:28:52 - 1.72 --- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table.sgml 9 Nov 2003 00:54:03 - *** *** 439,445 RESTRICT ! Same as NO ACTION. --- 439,447 RESTRICT ! Same as NO ACTION except that this action ! will not be deferred even if the rest of the constraint is ! deferrable and deferred. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I object to adding unnecessary complications like that. > Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics? The > changes to the code were the addition of only one line. The rest of the > patch was docs. My initial reaction was the same as Peter's, but after seeing the small size of the patch I reconsidered. It seems to make sense that BEGIN should be an exact synonym for START TRANSACTION. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > In fact, the BEGIN manual page says: > > > > >endterm="sql-start-transaction-title"> has the same functionality > >as BEGIN. > > > > which is currently not true because START TRANSACTION has additional > > options. > > Then the that manual page should be fixed. > > > The following patch fixes it. I will put it into 7.5 after an > > appropriate delay. > > I object to adding unnecessary complications like that. Shouldn't BEGIN and START TRANSACTION have the same mechanics? The changes to the code were the addition of only one line. The rest of the patch was docs. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] BEGIN vs START TRANSACTION
Bruce Momjian writes: > In fact, the BEGIN manual page says: > >endterm="sql-start-transaction-title"> has the same functionality >as BEGIN. > > which is currently not true because START TRANSACTION has additional > options. Then the that manual page should be fixed. > The following patch fixes it. I will put it into 7.5 after an > appropriate delay. I object to adding unnecessary complications like that. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
