> On 18 Sep 2017, at 23:18, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 5:13:38 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ryan Murphy writes:
>>> Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me.
>>> Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly
>>> via atoi / atol to be r
On Monday, September 18, 2017 5:13:38 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
> Ryan Murphy writes:
> > Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me.
> > Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly
> > via atoi / atol to be read as strings first, to give better error
> > handling.
>
Ryan Murphy writes:
> Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me.
> Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly via
> atoi / atol
> to be read as strings first, to give better error handling.
>
> This looks good to go to me. Reviewing this as "Ready for Committer
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
I applied this patch via patch -p1. (Had an issue using git appl
Great, thanks Pierre!
I don't have a chance to try the patch tonight, but I will on the weekend
if no one else beats me to it.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:53 PM Pierre Ducroquet
wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:06:50 AM CEST Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Mic
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:06:50 AM CEST Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:>
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> >> I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last
> >> comment it seems we wish to ha
> On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>> I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment
>> it seems we wish to have it adjusted before committing)... but in any case I
>> was not able to apply you
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment
> it seems we wish to have it adjusted before committing)... but in any case I
> was not able to apply your patch to the tip of the master branch (my git
> apply fai
Hi Pierre,
I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment it
seems we wish to have it adjusted before committing)... but in any case I was
not able to apply your patch to the tip of the master branch (my git apply
failed). I'm setting this to Waiting On Author for
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
>> Here are the general guidelines about patch submission:
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
>> And the best thing would be to register it to the next commit fest so
>> as it does not get lost:
>> https://commitfest.pos
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 11:31:58 PM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Pierre Ducroquet
wrote:
> > Following your advice, I went through the source tree and cleaned up most
> > instances of that pattern.
> > I have attached the corresponding patch to this mail.
>
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
> Following your advice, I went through the source tree and cleaned up most
> instances of that pattern.
> I have attached the corresponding patch to this mail.
> If you think this patch is indeed interesting, what would be the next way to
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:59:03 AM CEST Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
wrote:
> > On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > Yesterday while doing a few pg_
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:59:03 AM CEST Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
wrote:
> > On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > Yesterday while doing a few p
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
> On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
> wrote:
>> > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
>> > parameters were not properly c
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
wrote:
> > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
> > parameters were not properly checked against invalid input.
> > It is not a critical issue, bu
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
> Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
> parameters were not properly checked against invalid input.
> It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who
> writes -z max or -s 0.5…
> I'
Hi
Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer
parameters were not properly checked against invalid input.
It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who
writes -z max or -s 0.5…
I've attached the patch to this mail. Should I add it to the next
18 matches
Mail list logo
