Re: [PATCHES] bug in vacuumlo?

2003-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do we need a 'AND NOT a.attisdropped' in there anywhere as well? Hm, probably a good idea, although in the current state of the code it theoretically shouldn't matter. (DROP COLUMN zeroes atttypid, so that part of the join won't succeed. But

Re: [PATCHES] bug in vacuumlo?

2003-09-23 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Do we need a 'AND NOT a.attisdropped' in there anywhere as well? Chris On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Irina Sourikova wrote: > > Hi, > > I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't > work > for me until I added one line: > > strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'")

[PATCHES] tsearch2 memory alloc checks

2003-09-23 Thread Nigel J. Andrews
This should apply cleanly to cvs tip. I've not changed any malloc/calloc to palloc. It looks to me that these memory areas are for the lifetime of the backend and in the interests of not breaking something that's not broken I left alone. Note for anyone reading this and wanting it for tsearch-v2

Re: [PATCHES] bug in vacuumlo?

2003-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Irina Sourikova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't > work > for me until I added one line: > strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'"); Hmm. This bug was patched last year in CVS tip, but apparently not in the 7.3 bra

[PATCHES] bug in vacuumlo?

2003-09-23 Thread Irina Sourikova
Hi, I tried to use vacuumlo of posgres-7.3.4/contrib/vacuumlo and it didn't work for me until I added one line: strcat(buf, " AND c.relname <> 'vacuum_l'"); after strcat(buf, "SELECT c.relname, a.attname "); strcat(buf, "FROM pg_class c, pg_attribute a, pg_type t "); strcat(buf

Re: [PATCHES] contrib mode - pgenv

2003-09-23 Thread Richard Huxton
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 01:19, Mike Mascari wrote: > Yes. I guess the lifetime of this contrib module would be short - SQL > temporary tables that don't suffer those performance penalties would > be the correct solution. Not for what I was thinking of (see below). > I think it might be usef