On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:46:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Pushed; thanks for working on this!
Here's a fix to make the MSVC build process account for the addition of
HAVE_UUID_OSSP. (None of the MSVC buildfarm members enable uuid-ossp.)
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
Here's a fix to make the MSVC build process account for the addition of
HAVE_UUID_OSSP. (None of the MSVC buildfarm members enable uuid-ossp.)
Looks reasonable. I'm unable to test this scenario, but if you have,
please commit.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
the dash, and we have regularly
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not terribly happy about pushing such a change post-beta1 either,
but it's not like this isn't something we've known was needed. Anyway,
what's the worst case if we find a bug here? Tell people not to use
uuid-ossp?
Mainly some more discussion time
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade
to 2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this option.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade
to 2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this option.
I am pretty concerned actually.
On 05/29/2014 08:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade to
2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this
On 5/29/14, 8:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
But I don't see downgrading to an
earlier autoconf as something really helpful.
Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
what we want.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
On 2014-05-29 08:49:38 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/29/14, 8:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
But I don't see downgrading to an
earlier autoconf as something really helpful.
Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
what we want.
Still wouldn't have solved
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-05-29 08:49:38 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Well, we could have just hacked up that particular header check to do
what we want.
Still wouldn't have solved that ossp already didn't work on several
platforms at all anymore and is likely to
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 05/29/2014 08:21 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Yes, it'd have been nice if this were done a month+ ago. But nobody
stepped up :(. Seems like the least bad choice :/
The most worrying thing is that we didn't find the occasioning problem
when we
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the
upgrade to 2.69.
Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
the dash, and we have regularly questioned the viability of the
uuid-ossp codebase.
Now that we know we
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:56:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
the dash, and we have regularly questioned the
Hi Tom,
On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
I've verified functionality of this patch on these scenarios:
(1) --with-ossp-uuid on RHEL6, using uuid-1.6.1-10.el6.x86_64
(2) --with-linux-uuid on RHEL6, using libuuid-2.17.2-12.14.el6_5.x86_64
(3) --with-linux-uuid on OS X 10.9.3, Intel
(4)
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
I do not have a machine on which to try --with-bsd-uuid, so it's
possible I broke that portion of Matteo's patch. Would someone try
that case on a FreeBSD box?
I've tested on NetBSD i386 and --with-bsd-uuid worked
Hi Tom,
On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
On 27/05/2014 03:07, Tom Lane wrote:
I do not have a machine on which to try --with-bsd-uuid, so it's
possible I broke that portion of Matteo's patch. Would someone try
that case on a FreeBSD box?
I've
Tom Lane wrote:
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes:
On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
Meh. Unix certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
useful distinction. I guess we could use
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
Ah, cool. I had documented this option as only working for FreeBSD,
but that's obviously too conservative. Anyone know about whether it
works on OpenBSD?
I've tried to google man uuid openbsd and I got the e2fs
On 2014-05-27 16:36:45 +0200, Matteo Beccati wrote:
On 27/05/2014 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
Ah, cool. I had documented this option as only working for FreeBSD,
but that's obviously too conservative. Anyone know about whether it
works on OpenBSD?
I've tried to google man uuid openbsd and I
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Why not --with-uuid-implementation=impl, and have impl be one of
e2utils, bsd, ossp, with the latter being default? We could also have
offer the value list or help which would list the available options.
That way, if we come up with a new
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Why not --with-uuid-implementation=impl, and have impl be one of
e2utils, bsd, ossp, with the latter being default? We could also have
offer the value list or help which would list the available options.
That way, if we come
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The problem is that the long-established spelling is --with-ossp-uuid.
I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up something
like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
advantage to doing
On May 27, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In either case, the problem remains of exactly what to call the
e2fsprogs-derived implementation. It does seem that people who are
familiar with these libraries call it that, but I'm worried that such
a name will confuse those
On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
The problem is that the long-established spelling is
--with-ossp-uuid.
I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up
something
like what you propose
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
--with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
with no default at present (ie you can't say just --with-uuid,
though we'd have the option to
Pushed; thanks for working on this!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 5/26/14, 1:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Assuming this works as advertised, does anyone have an objection to
pushing it into 9.4?
Yes, it's way too late for that.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 5/27/14, 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
--with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
with no default at present (ie you can't say just
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I'm shocked that this new feature has been committed post beta with less
than 48 hours of review time over a holiday weekend. This issue has
been known for years. Why does it need to be solved right now?
As per the commit message: our packagers were
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD variants
* md5.o and sha1.o are linked only when not using the ossp library
* fixed a bug
On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD variants
Imo should be the other way
On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
I'm attaching v2 of the patch. Here's a list of changes from v1:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD variants
Imo should be
Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-25 12508.1401045...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
Christoph Berg c...@df7cb.de writes:
Re: Tom Lane 2014-05-25 12508.1401045...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
the patch, this nukes the uuid-ossp extension entirely in favor of a
new extension uuid (providing the same SQL functions with a
I wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
On 26/05/2014 19:31, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-05-26 13:25:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
* Restored --with-ossp-uuid. Configure tries ossp support first, then
falls back to Linux and BSD variants
Imo
On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
attached revision of Matteo's patch, I called them --with-ossp-uuid
(the existing
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes:
On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
attached revision of Matteo's patch, I
On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
Meh. Unix certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
useful distinction. I guess we could use ext2 but that would just
confuse most people.
--with-uuid?
Which
David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes:
On May 26, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
Meh. Unix certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
useful distinction. I guess we could use ext2 but that would
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless I'm misreading
the patch, this nukes the uuid-ossp extension entirely in
Hi Tom,
thanks for the feedback.
On 25/05/2014 21:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com writes:
here's the latest version of my uuid changes patch, according to
proposal (2) from Tom in the thread about OSSP-UUID[1].
Hmm ... this is not actually what I had in mind. Unless
43 matches
Mail list logo
