On 07/16/2014 08:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
Heikki, did you get chance to commit your patch? IMHO we should get the bug
fix in before minor releases next week. My apologies if you've already
committed it and I've missed the commit messag
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> Heikki, did you get chance to commit your patch? IMHO we should get the bug
> fix in before minor releases next week. My apologies if you've already
> committed it and I've missed the commit message.
FWIW, this patch has not been committed y
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
> hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I came up with the attached. There were several bugs:
>>
>>
> I tested for the original bug report and patch definitely fixes that. I
> don't f
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> I came up with the attached. There were several bugs:
>
>
I tested for the original bug report and patch definitely fixes that. I
don't feel qualified enough with SP-Gist to really comment on the other
bugs
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >
> > Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> >
> > > I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> > > postgresql-9.3.2. So the bug is not for my codes.
> >
> > > By the way, following c
On 06/24/2014 11:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The real bug is in spg_range_quad_inner_consistent(), for the adjacent
operator. Things go wrong when:
The scan key is [100, 500)
The prev centroid is [500, 510)
The current centroid is [544, 554).
The row that should match but isn't returned, [
On 06/24/2014 08:48 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
FWIW I can reproduce this on HEAD with the attached patch. I could
reproduce this on a 64-bit Ubuntu as well as 64-bit Mac OSX. Very confusing
it is because I tried with various values for N in char[N] array and it
fails for N=20. Other values I tried
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> Soroosh Sardari wrote:
>
> > I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> > postgresql-9.3.2. So the bug is not for my codes.
>
> > By the way, following code has two different output and it is
> > weird.
>
> I can confirm that I s
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> On 2014-06-24 15:23:54 +0430, Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> >
> > > Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> > >
> > > > I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> > > > postgresql-9.3.2. So
On 2014-06-24 15:23:54 +0430, Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> > Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> >
> > > I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> > > postgresql-9.3.2. So the bug is not for my codes.
> >
> > > By the way, following code has
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Soroosh Sardari wrote:
>
> > I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> > postgresql-9.3.2. So the bug is not for my codes.
>
> > By the way, following code has two different output and it is
> > weird.
>
> I can confirm that I se
Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> I check this problem with a virgin source code of
> postgresql-9.3.2. So the bug is not for my codes.
> By the way, following code has two different output and it is
> weird.
I can confirm that I see the difference in 9.3.2, and that I don't
see the difference in 9.3.4.
At 2014-06-24 14:21:24 +0430, soroosh.sard...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> By the way, following code has two different output and it is weird.
I get the same output from both queries with both 9.3.4 and HEAD:
ir
---
[90,100)
[500,510)
(2 rows)
If you're reporting a problem, please ma
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Soroosh Sardari
>> wrote:
>> > Is there any rule for adding a field to PageHeaderData?
>>
>> Not really. It's a pretty internal thing, not something
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Soroosh Sardari
> wrote:
> > Is there any rule for adding a field to PageHeaderData?
>
> Not really. It's a pretty internal thing, not something we expect
> people to be doing all the time.
>
> The only rule I
On 2014-06-24 01:58:32 -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Soroosh Sardari
> wrote:
> > Is there any rule for adding a field to PageHeaderData?
>
> Not really. It's a pretty internal thing, not something we expect
> people to be doing all the time.
I'd actually say that
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Soroosh Sardari
wrote:
> Is there any rule for adding a field to PageHeaderData?
Not really. It's a pretty internal thing, not something we expect
people to be doing all the time.
The only rule I can think of is that you should bump some version
numbers such as
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Soroosh Sardari wrote:
> Dear Hackers
>
> I wanted to add a char array with length of 20 to PageHeaderData in
> include/storage/bufpage.h.
> Surprisingly regression test failed on rangetypes test!
>
> The diff of resulted and expected file is :
>
> *** 968,974 **
Dear Hackers
I wanted to add a char array with length of 20 to PageHeaderData in
include/storage/bufpage.h.
Surprisingly regression test failed on rangetypes test!
The diff of resulted and expected file is :
*** 968,974
select count(*) from test_range_spgist where ir -|- int4range(100,500
19 matches
Mail list logo
