Re: [PATCHES] pgstat: remove delayed destroy / pipe:

Right, and the FRONTEND fix should correct this. Sorry you had to do so much legwork to find my mistake. --- Peter Brant wrote: > I'm still planning on doing this. > > I did add a loop around the second WSARecv in pgwin32_

Re: [PATCHES] pgstat: remove delayed destroy / pipe: socket error fix

Now that we know the cause of the Win32 failure (FRONTEND), we don't need the Win32 part of this patch anymore right? (The stats display part was already applied.) --- Peter Brant wrote: > Hi all, > > Attached are two patc

Re: [PATCHES] pgstat: remove delayed destroy / pipe:

Magnus Hagander wrote: > > It turns out the problem is that port/pipe.c is compiled with > > -DFRONTEND and include/port/win32.h wraps the recv to > > pgwin32_recv macro in a #ifndef FRONTEND. We've actually > > been using the WinSock recv function directly (verified with gcc -E). > > That's d

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl > > > stuff out of the main files and a second which adds

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's not too bad. Where exactly were you thinking of putting the > counter and the lock? My original thought was to keep it in btree metapages, but that's kind of annoying since we just went to some effort to cache metapage contents; which means

Re: [PATCHES] Page at a time index scan

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Tom Lane wrote: I have a sketch of a solution that doesn't require any change in page allocation behavior. Can anyone see any holes in this: Looks good to me. Assume that we have some way to recognize whether a page has been split since the current btbulkdelete scan star

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:47:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > If you like I can split it into two patches, one patch splits the openssl > > stuff out of the main files and a second which adds gnutls support. > > Yes, I understood that, but we now have duplicate

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns. > > Is this what we want to do? > > More than half the patch is simply moving the OpenSSL

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns. > Is this what we want to do? More than half the patch is simply moving the OpenSSL related stuff from fe/be-secure.c to fe/be-secure-openssl.c. If you create

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

Sven Suursoho wrote: > Fri, 05 May 2006 19:20:55 +0300, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> I think that a less confusing way of saying it would be : > >> "Generators crash if python version used is 2.4.x and it is compiled > >> with asserts. Currently only known linux distributions

Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Add support for GnuTLS

This is a pretty massive patch, but I understand the license concerns. Is this what we want to do? FYI, yesterday's SSL CRL additions need to be added to this patch. --- Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed

Re: [PATCHES] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add SSL CRL support to libpq.

Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Add SSL CRL support to libpq. Recently added to the backend. > > Surely this patch requires a documentation update. Oh, I didn't realize the libpq documentation went into that detail, but it does. Patch attached and applied. --

Re: [PATCHES] cast bytea to/from bit strings

Bruce Momjian writes: > Fabien COELHO wrote: >> I think that the inability to convert nearly binary compatible standard >> types one to the other is a postgresql issue. Even if it is not often >> useful, the point is completeness and soundness of the type provided by >> the core. > OK, can I g

Re: [PATCHES] cast bytea to/from bit strings

Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear Bruce, > > > I am not sure this is of general enough usefulness to be in the backend. > > Hmm... > > I think that the inability to convert nearly binary compatible standard > types one to the other is a postgresql issue. Even if it is not often > useful, the poin

Re: [PATCHES] plpython improvements

Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-05-05 kell 09:20, kirjutas Joshua D. Drake: > > > > I think that a less confusing way of saying it would be : > > > > "Generators crash if python version used is 2.4.x and it is compiled > > with asserts. > > > > Currently only known linux distributions to distibut