> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But you were able to tell me when you would commit the
> > change, weren't you ? In the first place this issue was
> > started from your mistake and you had to be careful not
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you were able to tell me when you would commit the
> change, weren't you ? In the first place this issue was
> started from your mistake and you had to be careful not
> to repeat such mistake.
I already apologized for that error. I'm not sure what e
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Though there has been no discussion like discussion on this
> > item between Tom and me, his code is already there.
> > Is it reasonbale ? As I already mentioned many many times
> > putting back his change should
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > He also ignored my question about "2 phase commit" in pgsql-hackers, for
> > > example.
> >
> > Actually, I've been following that thread pretty closely, and I believ
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > He also ignored my question about "2 phase commit" in pgsql-hackers, for
> > example.
>
> Actually, I've been following that thread pretty closely, and I believe I
> missed your question :(
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> He also ignored my question about "2 phase commit" in pgsql-hackers, for
>> example.
> Actually, I've been following that thread pretty closely, and I believe I
> missed your question :(
[ checks back in
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> He also ignored my question about "2 phase commit" in pgsql-hackers, for
> example.
Actually, I've been following that thread pretty closely, and I believe I
missed your question :(
---(end of broadcast)
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Personal issue ?
> > > > Are you going to dodge the issue ?
> > >
> > > Hiroshi, Tom already apologized for doing this without prior
> > > discussion.
> >
> > Though there has been no discussion like discussion on thi
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Personal issue ?
> > > Are you going to dodge the issue ?
> >
> > Hiroshi, Tom already apologized for doing this without prior
> > discussion.
>
> Though there has been no discussion like discussion on this
> item between Tom and me, his code is already there.
> Is i
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Though there has been no discussion like discussion on this
> item between Tom and me, his code is already there.
> Is it reasonbale ? As I already mentioned many many times
> putting back his change should have been the first thing but
> it wasn't.
Y
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Why? As far as I know, the modified code does everything you want.
> >
> > > How do you wha
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Why? As far as I know, the modified code does everything you want.
>
> > How do you what I want ?
>
> If you aren't going t
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Why? As far as I know, the modified code does everything you want.
> How do you what I want ?
If you aren't going to tell me, I guess I won't know :-(. It seems
like you want to turn this into some kind o
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Remove the 'index deactivation' code, since it provides
> >> no useful protection in the shared- index case.
>
> > Seems a funny reason to me.
>
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Remove the 'index deactivation' code, since it provides
>> no useful protection in the shared- index case.
> Seems a funny reason to me.
Well, as you know I never liked that code; modifying permanent on-disk
data didn't seem like a sensible way to
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I committed the fixes a few minutes ago. I now actually
> believe that
> >> reindexing system tables works ;-) ... hopefully Hiroshi does too.
>
> > I don't see your com
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I committed the fixes a few minutes ago. I now actually believe that
>> reindexing system tables works ;-) ... hopefully Hiroshi does too.
> I don't see your commit message yet.
CVS reports to the committers list seem to be wedged this afternoon :-(
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Where are we on this? Does the code path now make sense, at least?
> >
> > I committed the fixes a few minutes ago. I now actually believe th
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where are we on this? Does the code path now make sense, at least?
>
> I committed the fixes a few minutes ago. I now actually believe that
> reindexing system tables works
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where are we on this? Does the code path now make sense, at least?
I committed the fixes a few minutes ago. I now actually believe that
reindexing system tables works ;-) ... hopefully Hiroshi does too.
regards, tom lane
-
r 21, 2003 6:45 AM
> > To: Hiroshi Inoue
> > Cc: 'Tom Lane'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend
> > catalog/index.c comma ...
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > > &qu
CVSROOT:/cvsroot
Module name:pgsql-server
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/22 22:51:09
Modified files:
src/backend/catalog: index.c
src/backend/commands: indexcmds.c
Log message:
Putting back the previous change must be the first thing.
A
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:45 AM
> To: Hiroshi Inoue
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend
> catalog/index.c comma ...
&g
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is
> coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been
> answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in only addressing
> 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions? Is t
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ?
> >
> > Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about
> > it on pghackers.
>
> Oh discussion *first* is good but You committed *
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ?
>
> Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about
> it on pghackers.
Oh discussion *first* is good but You committed *first*.
So isn't it reasonable to revert your change *fi
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why could you determine it ? Is PostgreSQL your system ?
Well, if you prefer, we can have a discussion and vote about it on pghackers.
But you have not answered my questions. Why was the code set up to
allow live reindexing of system tables via REINDE
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good
> >> idea to allow
> >> this in REINDEX TABLE and not in the other two cases? And
> >> did it really
> >> work?
>
> > Yes. I would revert your change.
>
> You didn't answer the first q
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good
>> idea to allow
>> this in REINDEX TABLE and not in the other two cases? And
>> did it really
>> work?
> Yes. I would revert your change.
You didn't answer the first question: why's this
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Log message:
> >> Seems like a bad idea that REINDEX TABLE supports (or
> >> thinks it does)
> >> reindexing system tables without ignoring system
> >> indexes,
>
> > Why ?
>
> I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good
> i
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Log message:
>> Seems like a bad idea that REINDEX TABLE supports (or
>> thinks it does)
>> reindexing system tables without ignoring system
>> indexes,
> Why ?
I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good idea to allow
this in REIND
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane
>
> CVSROOT: /cvsroot
> Module name: pgsql-server
> Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/19 16:57:42
>
> Modified files:
> src/backend/catalog: index.c
> src/backend/commands: indexcmds.c
>
> Log message:
> Seems like
CVSROOT:/cvsroot
Module name:pgsql-server
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/19 16:57:42
Modified files:
src/backend/catalog: index.c
src/backend/commands: indexcmds.c
Log message:
Seems like a bad idea that REINDEX TABLE supports (or thinks it doe
34 matches
Mail list logo
