Well, I tend to agree with that. Overall, I can't say that I see bad
things coming out of accepting the patch as is. It's not exactly
causing an extra join or other wise a significant waste of resources.
At worst, it appears to be ambiguous. Since Christopher has not offered
any additional
Yep - alright, just commit it I guess.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2002 11:09 AM
To: Rod Taylor
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Bruce Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] python patch
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Okay, I read
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2002-06/msg00086.php and never
saw a
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Well, that certainly appeared to be very straight forward. pg.py and
syscat.py scripts were
]]
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2002 11:09 AM
To: Rod Taylor
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Bruce Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] python patch
Well, I tend to agree with that. Overall, I can't say that I see bad
things coming out of accepting the patch
-Original Message-
From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2002 11:09 AM
To: Rod Taylor
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Bruce Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing
List
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] python patch
Well, I tend to agree
On Sun, 2002-08-11 at 21:15, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Not a problem. I would rather them be correct.
Worth noting that the first patch is what attempts to fix the long -
int overflow issue. The second patch attempts to resolve attisdropped
column use issues with the python
All of that said, the cost of the check is so small it may save someones
ass some day when they have a corrupted catalog and the below
assumptions are no longer true.
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 18:40, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Sun, 2002-08-11 at 21:15, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Not a problem.
I wouldn't apply this _just_ yet Bruce as I'm not certain all the changes
are necessary... I intend to look into it but I haven't had the time yet
(sorry Greg!)
Chris
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
Not a problem. I would rather them be correct.
Worth noting that the first patch is what attempts to fix the long -
int overflow issue. The second patch attempts to resolve attisdropped
column use issues with the python scripts. The third patch addresses
issues generated by the implicate to
OK, great to have people reviewing them. I will hold on all the python
patches until I hear back from Christopher:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking
Not a problem. I would rather them be correct.
Worth noting that the first patch is what attempts to fix the long -
int overflow issue. The second patch attempts to resolve attisdropped
column use issues with the python scripts. The third patch addresses
issues generated by the implicate
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Checking
14 matches
Mail list logo
