I really appreciate for the modification.
I also believe XLOG_NOOP is cool to maintains XLOG format consistent.
I'll continue to write a code to produce incremental log record from
the full page writes as well as too maintain CRC, XLOOG_NOOP and
other XLOG locations,I also found that you've
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Does the format not include the per-process line number?
It does not, and I never noticed that under the prefix
possibilities---never seemed import before! The combination of
timestamp/pid/line (%t %p %l) looks like a useful and unique key here, so
stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch implements a circular buffer in tuplestore which drops old tuples
> as they're no longer needed. It uses this for merge joins to avoid having to
> spill the tuplestore if no single value exceeds work_mem. It also is what's
> needed for both recursive q
Am Dienstag, 10. April 2007 14:01 schrieb Nikolay Samokhvalov:
> Here is new version that adds following changes:
> 4. Function is now strict, per discussion.
> 5. Return empty array in case when XPath expression detects nothing
> (previously, NULL was returned in such case), per discussion.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But why are we doing that CHAREQ?
To avoid the cost of the recursive call, just like it says.
If it succeeds we'll
just do it again when we recurse, I think.
If you move the other two cases then you could advance
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 16:03 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 00:01 schrieb Jeff Davis:
> > Here is the latest version of my patch that's revised according to my
> > discussions with Heikki and Simon:
>
> This patch was apparently done against 8.2.4, but it doesn't apply to
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:17:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a dependency on
> DTK_ISODOW in the first place. That looks more like a copy&paste
> error than something intentional. Michael?
It is, somehow it slipped through. Just removed it.
Michael
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 15:21 schrieb Gregory Stark:
> Also, I forgot to mention previously there is an unrelated trivial hunk in
> here. I noticed we free the password early, presumably for security
> reasons,
No, to save memory.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---
Guillaume Lelarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
> DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
> and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a depende
Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 00:01 schrieb Jeff Davis:
> Here is the latest version of my patch that's revised according to my
> discussions with Heikki and Simon:
This patch was apparently done against 8.2.4, but it doesn't apply to CVS
head.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~pet
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But why are we doing that CHAREQ?
To avoid the cost of the recursive call, just like it says.
> If it succeeds we'll
> just do it again when we recurse, I think.
If you move the other two cases then you could advance t and p before
entering the recur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doh, you're right ... but on third thought, what happens with a pattern
containing "%_"? If % tries to advance bytewise then we'll be trying to
apply NextChar in the middle of a data character, and bad things ensue.
Right, when you have '_' after a '%' you need
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> Attached is an updated patch.
>>
>
> This patch appears to add a nonexistent test to the regression schedules.
I must have forgotten to cvs add it. Sorry.
Also, I forgot to mention previously there is an unrelated trivial hun
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On 5/21/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
>
> Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
> from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
>
>
I looked at the patch. Not that I a
On 5/21/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
>
> Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
> from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
>
>
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very comfortable with
On 5/19/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, sorry about that. For some reason my source tree was checked out
from the 8.2 branch, instead of CVS HEAD.
I looked at the patch. Not that I am very comfortable with this part
of the code, but nevertheless here are my comments:
Hi all,
With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
Regards.
--
Guillaume.
? src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/libecpg_compat.so.2.2
? src/interfaces/e
I forgot to attach the program used to generate test data. Here it is.
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Attached is a new version of Simon's "scan-resistant buffer manager"
patch. It's not ready for committing yet because of a small issue I
found this morning (* see bottom), but here's a status update
18 matches
Mail list logo
