Hi Sergei,
ok to push. Should we always prefer "static inline" over macroses?
Regards,
Sergey
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:38:02PM +0200, s...@mariadb.org wrote:
> revision-id: ab7640f4d30f5a160d3a1c77efe9d2c459a3bda6
> parent(s): d916a1dc7705ae29a916e7ec91f0c76bceab708c
> committer: Sergei Golubc
Martin Kaluznik writes:
> different places is not acceptable. I have decided to use regular
> replication IO thread as Kristian Nielsen suggested before and add
> special handling where necessary.
Right. Being able to re-use the code for talking on the network with the
master will be a huge bene
Hi Sergei,
ok to push.
Regards,
Sergey
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:38:11PM +0200, s...@mariadb.org wrote:
> revision-id: 68b5057695165b88db38d5090f45ebe3a5149995
> parent(s): ab7640f4d30f5a160d3a1c77efe9d2c459a3bda6
> committer: Sergei Golubchik
> branch nick: maria
> timestamp: 2015-05-26 15:28:
Hi, Sergey!
On Jun 02, Sergey Vojtovich wrote:
> Hi Sergei,
>
> ok to push. Should we always prefer "static inline" over macroses?
I generally prefer static inline functions to macros and only use macros
when a function cannot do the job (which is still pretty often :).
Back in the last milleni
Hi, I'm new to this list. I have a bug and a patch for it for libmysql
There is a bug in the file libmariadb.c (on line 1761 in latest source). The
line is as follows:
vio_wait_or_timeout(net->vio, FALSE, mysql->options.connect_timeout * 100) < 1)
The bug is that FALSE should be TRUE. The bug m
Georg? This looks like it is in the new LGPL'ed library?
- Kristian.
Matthew Fagan writes:
> Hi, I'm new to this list. I have a bug and a patch for it for libmysql
>
> There is a bug in the file libmariadb.c (on line 1761 in latest source). The
> line is as follows:
>
> vio_wait_or_timeout(ne
Hi Sergei,
I suggest to move MDEV-6691 to 10.1:
Reasons:
1. It will be easier to fix it on top of:
MDEV-6991 GROUP_MIN_MAX optimization is erroneously applied in some
cases
So fixing before 10.0 is not desirable
2. The relevant code is different in 10.1.
So it's not desirable to fix befo
Hi Sergei,
Can we move these bugs from 10.0 to 10.1:
(MDEV-8167) XOR returns bad results for an indexed column
(MDEV-6973) XOR aggregates argument collations
?
I earlier sent you a joint patch that fixes both.
It moves Item_func_xor from Item_bool_func2 to Item_bool_func.
But the problem is
Hi, Alexander!
Okay, I agree.
Regards,
Sergei
On Jun 02, Alexander Barkov wrote:
> Hi Sergei,
>
> Can we move these bugs from 10.0 to 10.1:
>
> (MDEV-8167) XOR returns bad results for an indexed column
> (MDEV-6973) XOR aggregates argument collations
>
> ?
>
>
> I earlier sent you a joint p
Hi, Alexander!
MDEV-6691 seems to be unrelated. What bug did you mean?
Regards,
Sergei
On Jun 02, Alexander Barkov wrote:
> Hi Sergei,
>
> I suggest to move MDEV-6691 to 10.1:
>
> Reasons:
>
> 1. It will be easier to fix it on top of:
>
> MDEV-6991 GROUP_MIN_MAX optimization is erroneously a
Hi Sergei,
On 06/02/2015 07:51 PM, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Hi, Alexander!
MDEV-6691 seems to be unrelated. What bug did you mean?
Sorry for confusing.
I meant this one:
(MDEV-8229) GROUP_MIN_MAX is erroneously applied for BETWEEN in some cases
Regards,
Sergei
On Jun 02, Alexander Bar
Hi, Alexander!
On Jun 02, Alexander Barkov wrote:
> Hi Sergei,
>
> I suggest to move MDEV-6691 to 10.1:
>
> Reasons:
>
> 1. It will be easier to fix it on top of:
>MDEV-6991 GROUP_MIN_MAX optimization is erroneously applied in some
>cases
>So fixing before 10.0 is not desirable
> 2.
12 matches
Mail list logo