Hi.
- Original Message -
From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:54AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded.
Although 64bit mak is experimental, it needs to be compiled.
Please apply this.
Is this really correc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:46:15 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would suggest forgetting that part and submitting the part
> > > that has some chance of getting accepted.
> >
> >
> > Actually i want to submit the patch, wh
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> I would suggest forgetting that part and submitting the part that
> has some chance of getting accepted.
Actually i want to submit the patch, which is best according to me.
That's not an attitude that is likely to succeed - you need to
I have submitted the first working patch for the trailing null optimization.
It currently does the following
a) Doesn't store the null bitmap, if the heap tuple / index tuple contains
only trailing nulls
b) In Heap Tuple, the trailing nulls won't occupy space in the null bitmap.
The General design
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:41:56PM +0530, Dhanaraj M wrote:
Hi all,
This is the continuation to the discussion that we had in the hacker's
list.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00684.php
Here, I like to add some details in 20.2.6. PAM auth
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:41:56PM +0530, Dhanaraj M wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is the continuation to the discussion that we had in the hacker's
> list.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00684.php
>
>
> Here, I like to add some details in 20.2.6. PAM authentication secti
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:47:02AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:39:14PM +, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >>>Writing and calling a temp .bat file might be yucky - having to keep two
> >>>environment files
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:19:54AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Ummm, Sorry...former patch to be disregarded.
> Although 64bit mak is experimental, it needs to be compiled.
> Please apply this.
Is this really correct? Fromw hat I can tell you *both* tell us not to
check the value *and* set the
