Le 05/08/2010 12:21, Dave Page a écrit :
> It sounded like a bug to me. 1.12 seems fine.
>
More a performance issue, than a real bug. 1.12 seems fine to me too.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
--
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
It sounded like a bug to me. 1.12 seems fine.
On 8/4/10, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 04/08/2010 23:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>> Le 04/08/2010 22:55, Chuck McDevitt a écrit :
>>> A quick test showed no problems for me.
>>>
>>
>> Great, thanks. I applied the patch.
>>
>>
>
> Thinking about
Le 04/08/2010 23:36, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 04/08/2010 22:55, Chuck McDevitt a écrit :
>> A quick test showed no problems for me.
>>
>
> Great, thanks. I applied the patch.
>
>
Thinking about it, It probably shouldn't have commited it in the 1.12
branch. Comments on this? I can revert
Le 04/08/2010 22:55, Chuck McDevitt a écrit :
> A quick test showed no problems for me.
>
Great, thanks. I applied the patch.
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
--
Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
A quick test showed no problems for me.
> -Original Message-
> From: Guillaume Lelarge [mailto:guilla...@lelarge.info]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:19 PM
> To: Chuck McDevitt
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Patch on roles query for pgAdmin with a Greenplum database
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
Hi Chuck,
As you sent some patches for pgAdmin to work better with Greenplum
database, I'm wondering if you could try this patch on 1.12 branch with
a Greenplum database. As I don't have one, it's not easy to check if it
works as I supposed.
The issue is explained here:
http://archives.postgresql
