Hello
I am sending enhanced version of original patch.
2008/5/5 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> this patch adds possibility to set additional options (SQLSTATE,
>> DETAIL, DETAIL_LOG and HINT) for RAISE statement,
>
> I looked this over briefly. A
Where are we on this?
---
Tom Dunstan wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Here is a patch that provides an initial implementation of the module
> idea that was kicked around over the last few days. While there
> certainly wasn't consensus
Hi guys,
Here's the latest version of the printTable API. This version is
against the current HEAD and merges in the changes made by the
recently committed psql wrap patch.
This version also includes Alvaro's fix for the issue of pg_strdup not
being available to programs in scripts/ (as quoted b
Where are we on this?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> +#if defined(__sh__) /* Renesas SuperH */
>
> > Do they have any longer form of that macro?
>
> I looked into the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is the patch replace offnum++ by OffsetNumberNext.
> > According to off.h, OffsetNumberNext is the macro prepared to
> > disambiguate the different manipulations on OffsetNumbers.
> > But, increment operator was used in some places
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Alex Hunsaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ patch to change inherited-check-constraint behavior ]
>
> Applied after rather heavy editorializations. You didn't do very well on
> getting it to work in multiple-inheritance sce
"Alex Hunsaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ patch to change inherited-check-constraint behavior ]
Applied after rather heavy editorializations. You didn't do very well on
getting it to work in multiple-inheritance scenarios, such as
create table p (f1 int check (f1>0));
creat
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, 8.3 is already different from 8.2, and a lot of people will see
>> this particular aspect of it as a regression. I'm okay with
>> backpatching to 8.3 ... though the patch needed rather more testing
>> than you gave it.
> OK, so
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turns out it wasn't so contorted. Updated patch attached that only warns
> in the exact cases where the setting is ignored, and the warning says how
> it's actually setting the scale. I tested all the run types and it
> correctly complains only when war
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Guillaume Smet wrote:
> >> I understand your point of view but I really think it's more a
> >> regression fix than a behavior change.
>
> > If I can get other hackers to say we should backpatch we can consider
> > it.
>
> Well, 8.3 i
Tom Lane wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ok, that'll work. Committed, thanks. I changed the sanity check that
xlogfname > restore point into an Assert, though, because that's a sign
that something's wrong.
Shouldn't that Assert allow the equality case?
Yes. Thanks.
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, that'll work. Committed, thanks. I changed the sanity check that
> xlogfname > restore point into an Assert, though, because that's a sign
> that something's wrong.
Shouldn't that Assert allow the equality case?
rega
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With GCC 4.3, I get warnings from every flex scanner that 'input' is defined
> but not used. This can be solved by adding %option noinput. I tested this
> option with a current flex and with the old 2.5.4a; both accept it. See
> attached patch.
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 15:37 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > if (restartWALFileName)
> > {
> > + /*
> > +* Don't do cleanup if the restartWALFileName provided
> > +* is later than the xlog file requested. This is an error
> > +
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turns out it wasn't so contorted. Updated patch attached that only warns
> in the exact cases where the setting is ignored, and the warning says how
> it's actually setting the scale.
It looks like the code could do with some refactoring. AFAICS
scale i
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guillaume Smet wrote:
>> I understand your point of view but I really think it's more a
>> regression fix than a behavior change.
> If I can get other hackers to say we should backpatch we can consider
> it.
Well, 8.3 is already different from 8.2, and
Simon Riggs wrote:
if (restartWALFileName)
{
+ /*
+* Don't do cleanup if the restartWALFileName provided
+* is later than the xlog file requested. This is an error
+* and we must not remove these files from archive.
+
Simon Riggs wrote:
I've extended the patch without introducing another new status variable,
which was my original concern with what you suggested previously.
Ok, that'll work. Committed, thanks. I changed the sanity check that
xlogfname > restore point into an Assert, though, because that's a
With GCC 4.3, I get warnings from every flex scanner that 'input' is defined
but not used. This can be solved by adding %option noinput. I tested this
option with a current flex and with the old 2.5.4a; both accept it. See
attached patch. Does anyone see problems with this?
diff --git a/src/
Bruce Momjian escribió:
> Guillaume Smet wrote:
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I mentioned it before, is there any chance for this fix to be
> > backported to 8.3 branch? IMHO it's a usability regression.
>
> No, we don't change behaviors in ba
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The way the option parsing code is done would make complaining in the case
where your parameter is ignored a bit of a contortion.
Yeah. But couldn't we have that part issue a warning if -s had be
21 matches
Mail list logo
