On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 13:15, Shigeru HANADA wrote:
> When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result.
> It would be because DR_copy's processed is not initialized in
> CreateCopyDestReceiver(). Please see attached patch.
Oops, thanks, applied.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
--
Sent vi
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:22:04 +0900
Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> Thanks comments. I've applied the COPY API patch.
When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result.
# Actually csv_branches has only 10 rows.
postgres=# copy (select * from csv_branches) to
'/home/hanada/DB/BINARY/branc
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 06:49 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg:
> >
> > CF 2011-03 (or whatever):
> > 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted
> > 2011-02-14: Reviewers
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:49, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
>
> I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I've been kind of wondering why you haven't already committed it. If
>> you're confident that the code is in good shape, I don't particularly
>> see any benefit to holding off.
>
> +10. The sooner the better.
Thanks comments. I've applied t
robertmh...@gmail.com (Robert Haas) writes:
> It does, but frankly I don't see much reason to change it, since it's
> been working pretty well on the whole. Andrew was on point when he
> mentioned that it's not obvious what committers get out of working on
> other people's patches. Obviously, the
On 02/15/2011 06:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
>> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
>> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
>> to be utterly broken if we don't do somet
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
> to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the
> client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; the
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg:
>
> CF 2011-03 (or whatever):
> 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted
> 2011-02-14: Reviewers start
> 2011-03-01: Committers start w/ 'Ready for Committer' patches
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> But the
> trickiest part of this whole process is that, on the one hand, it's
> not fair for committers to ignore other people's patches, but on the
> other hand, it's not fair to expect committers to sacrifice getting
> their own projects done to get
Sorry for the previous, content-free reply.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
>
>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I have to say that I've always been a bit suprised by the idea that the
> CommitFest is intended to be done and all patches *committed* at the end
> of the month. It's been working really rather well, which is due in
> great part to the exc
Robert Haas writes:
> We have committed 45 patches and returned with feedback or rejected
> 23. There are 30 remaining patches, every single one of which has
> been reviewed. 20 of those are marked Ready for Committer; 5 are
> marked Waiting on Author; 5 are marked Needs Review. However, again,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant '2011-02-14' there. :)
> So there are two basic difficulties wi
Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
We have committed 45 patches and returned with feedback or rejected
23. There are 30 remaining patches, every single one of which has
been reviewed. 20 of those are marked Ready for Committer; 5 are
marked Waiting on Author; 5 are marked Needs Re
16 matches
Mail list logo
