Rodrigo Sakai wrote:
Hello,
I’m having a big trouble with the index size! I have looked for a
solution in the internet, but the solutions that I found don’t fit for me!
I would guess you have an allocation calculation error/memory leak
somewhere in your implementation - maybe post
I've now finished up initial content generation on the wiki page that
covers using the CVS repository:
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Working_with_CVS
That includes all the helpful comments suggested on this list in last
month's threads on this topic along with a full dump of what
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
My second thought is that we should quite possibly abandon this
translation altogether - we know that our COPY code is quite happy with
either style of line ending, as long as the file is consistent, and also
many Windows programs will quite
I just noticed that there are a number of places (mostly GUC assignment
hooks) that use IsTransactionState() to decide if it's safe for them to
do catalog lookups. This seems pretty bogus because IsTransactionState
will return true in an aborted transaction. I'm not sure there's any
actual bug
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+sprintf(mutexName,postgresql.interlock.%i, portNumber);
That won't do; it should be legal for two postmasters to listen on
different IP addresses using the same port number. So you need to
include some representation of
Magnus Hagander wrote:
However, if I just *skip* setting SO_REUSEADDR completely, things seem
to work the way we want it. I cannot start more than one postmaster on
the same addr/port. If I start a psql, then terminate postmaster, I can
restart a new postmaster right away.
Given this, I
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on win32.
Anybody see a problem with this?
Is that true even if the backend crashes?
It would take a postmaster crash to make this an issue, and those are
pretty
Hello,
Ok, I give up! Tried a lot of things in my code! But still get error on
index row size. So, I'm part of my code, if someone could help me! A valid
value for this type is: '(03-jan-2007 , 15-may-2010)'
typedef struct t_periodo
{
DateADT tvi;
DateADT
Just glancing at this, a couple things stand out to me:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Rodrigo Sakai wrote:
Datum
periodo_in(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
{
char*str = PG_GETARG_CSTRING(0);
chartvi_char[MAXDATEFIELDS];
chartvf_char[MAXDATEFIELDS];
tvi_char = (char *)
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on win32.
Anybody see a problem with this?
(A fairly good reference to read up on the options is at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms740621.aspx
Hmm ... if accurate, that page says
Jeremy Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
chartvi_char[MAXDATEFIELDS];
tvi_char = (char *) palloc(strlen(MAXDATEFIELDS));
What are you doing here? This is completely broken.
Indeed ... *please* tell us your compiler issued a warning about that.
If not an error --- none of the compilers I
Hello Jeremy,
You are right about:
char tvi_char[MAXDATEFIELDS];
I have already tried this and didn't work too, it keeps giving the index
error!
About:
if (sscanf(str, ( %s , %s ), tvi_char, tvf_char) != 2)
I test tvi_char and tvf_char with StringToDateADT(tvi_char). Just
Indeed ... *please* tell us your compiler issued a warning about that.
I did shell scripts that suppress the warnings, so it was a big mistake, I
agree! But I think my problem is not here!
Well, you oughta allocate result before you store into it, not after,
and I bet you meant to assign to
13 matches
Mail list logo
