Hi,
after Beta1 I'd reported problems in the regression tests under Digital
Unix/Tru64. Unfortunately I had no time to report about my tests and to
check Beta2 before now.
Beta2 builds fine on Digital Unix 4.0G:
template1=# SELECT version();
version
-
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:51:01 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are
> thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other
> such platforms before I figure out how t
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are
> > thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other
> > such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way.
> >
> > In most platforms that are like this, I think,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are
> > thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other
> > such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way.
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:17:41 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first
> place?
>
> The thing
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are
> thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other
> such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way.
Long shot ... is there some way of wr
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first place?
> >
> > The thing that has me most confused here is that the end result is the
> > same
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 01:09:54 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'K, but why the change to NEEDS_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES in the first place?
The thing that has me most confused here is that the end result is the
same with or without the patch, from what I can tell ...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:57:45 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >> Index: src/port/thread.c
> >> =
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:57:45 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Index: src/port/thread.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/thread.c,v
ret
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Index: src/port/thread.c
> ===
> RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/port/thread.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -u -r1.4 thread.c
> --- src/port/thread.c 16 Aug 2003 15:35:
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:35:10 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:19:49 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So be it, but I was under the impression that the fix woul
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:19:49 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> So be it, but I was under the impression that the fix would be committed
> >> shortly after I posted it on LAST SATURDAY, but apparently Bruce
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:19:49 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So be it, but I was under the impression that the fix would be committed
shortly after I posted it on LAST SATURDAY, but apparently Bruce was out
of town, and the Beta2 TAG was laid, WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTI
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:21:29 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> SUPPORTS_THREADS=yes
> >> NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES=yes
> >> THREAD_CFLAGS = "$THREAD_CFLAGS -D_REENTRANT"
> >> $
> >>
> >> note the last line before the prompt.
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 23:25:06 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> SUPPORTS_THREADS=yes
> NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES=yes
> THREAD_CFLAGS = "$THREAD_CFLAGS -D_REENTRANT"
> $
>
> note the last line before the prompt.
Check current CVS ... now that Bruce
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:21:29 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SUPPORTS_THREADS=yes
NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES=yes
THREAD_CFLAGS = "$THREAD_CFLAGS -D_REENTRANT"
$
note the last line before the prompt.
Check current CVS ... now that Bruce has caught up on his email (
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > SUPPORTS_THREADS=yes
> > NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES=yes
> > THREAD_CFLAGS = "$THREAD_CFLAGS -D_REENTRANT"
> > $
> >
> > note the last line before the prompt.
>
> Check current CVS ... now that Bruce has caught up on his email (or made a
> dent in it) after being away,
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> UnixWare==SCO, but the Court fight has **NOTHING** to do with this issue.
> >>
> >> Does the PG core not care anymore about **QUALITY**?
> >>
> >> I'm NOT going to stand idly by as the SCO/IBM/RED HAT Legal issues are
> >> used to
> >> hurt PostgreSQL's quality.
> >>
> >
> SUPPORTS_THREADS=yes
> NEED_REENTRANT_FUNC_NAMES=yes
> THREAD_CFLAGS = "$THREAD_CFLAGS -D_REENTRANT"
> $
>
> note the last line before the prompt.
Check current CVS ... now that Bruce has caught up on his email (or made a
dent in it) after being away, looks like he's committed the fix:
SUPPORT
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, August 29, 2003 23:00:46 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Thursday, August 28, 2003 01:06:46 -0400 Tom Lane
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
> So be it, but I was under the impression that the fix would be committed
> shortly after I posted it on LAST SATURDAY, but apparently Bruce was out
> of town, and the Beta2 TAG was laid, WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE about the TAG
> coming.
Beta2 TAG was laid so that we could wrap up all fixes to date,
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 23:17:50 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
Don't start on the SCO issue. I submitted patches last weekend to fix
the UnixWare (and possibly other) issues.
You said you were working on them, then I see the note that BETA2 was
tagge
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Don't start on the SCO issue. I submitted patches last weekend to fix the
> UnixWare (and possibly other) issues.
>
> You said you were working on them, then I see the note that BETA2 was tagged
> with INVALID shell code in src/templates/unixware, and
> the per-platform th
--On Saturday, August 30, 2003 00:09:51 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does the PG core not care anymore about **QUALITY**?
Ummm, I believe that is why we are still in Beta, and not at a Release
Candidate stage ... cause there are still bugs, with Unixware obviously
being
> Does the PG core not care anymore about **QUALITY**?
Ummm, I believe that is why we are still in Beta, and not at a Release
Candidate stage ... cause there are still bugs, with Unixware obviously
being one of them ...
---(end of broadcast)---
T
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 23:00:46 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Thursday, August 28, 2003 01:06:46 -0400 Tom Lane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My UnixWare Thread.c patch/fix has been IGNORED.
>> I'd
--On Friday, August 29, 2003 22:58:50 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Thursday, August 28, 2003 19:31:17 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
>> Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
>
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 28, 2003 01:06:46 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> My UnixWare Thread.c patch/fix has been IGNORED.
> >> I'd like to see a fix before we declare Beta2.
> >
> > Beta2 is a done deal
Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 28, 2003 19:31:17 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >
> >> Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
> >> he'll take a look at the issues you raised, but we're not holding o
--On Thursday, August 28, 2003 19:31:17 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
he'll take a look at the issues you raised, but we're not holding off
beta2 another week for that to happen.
Could s
Tom Lane writes:
> Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
> he'll take a look at the issues you raised, but we're not holding off
> beta2 another week for that to happen.
Could someone tell the rest of the world ahead of time when release steps
are going to happen?
--On Thursday, August 28, 2003 01:06:46 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My UnixWare Thread.c patch/fix has been IGNORED.
I'd like to see a fix before we declare Beta2.
Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
he'
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My UnixWare Thread.c patch/fix has been IGNORED.
> I'd like to see a fix before we declare Beta2.
Beta2 is a done deal. When Bruce gets back from the seashore I expect
he'll take a look at the issues you raised, but we're not holding off
beta2 another
--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 00:21:23 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everything looks like it built clean ... will do a quick, more general
announce tomorrow, but if someone can confirm that things are good, that
would be great ...
My UnixWare Thread.c patch/fix has been
Everything looks like it built clean ... will do a quick, more general
announce tomorrow, but if someone can confirm that things are good, that
would be great ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index
36 matches
Mail list logo
