[BUGS] current cvs doesn't compile

2002-09-28 Thread Hubert depesz Lubaczewski
hi i downloaded sources from cvs on approx 19-20 of my time (cet i belive). when i try to compile, i get: ... ... ... make[4]: Opuszczam katalog `/home/services/pgdba/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/access/rtree' make -C transam SUBSYS.o make[4]: Wchodzę w katalog `/home/services/pgdba/cvs/pgsql/src/backen

[BUGS] Bug #788: configure script confused by gcc-3.2

2002-09-28 Thread pgsql-bugs
Richard Lightman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description configure script confused by gcc-3.2 Long Description The configure script tries to get gcc's version number into confdefs.h gcc-3.0.* outputs one line of text, b

Re: [BUGS] current cvs doesn't compile

2002-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Hubert depesz Lubaczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I. -I../../../sr= > c/include -c -o bootparse.o bootparse.c > bootparse.y: In function `do_start': > bootparse.y:58: too few arguments to function `StartTransactionCommand' > do yo

Re: [BUGS] Bug #788: configure script confused by gcc-3.2

2002-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > diff -urN postgresql-7.1.3/configure postgresql-7.1.3-rcl/configure Try a more recent release of Postgres ... we fixed this long ago. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/

Re: [BUGS] Bug #788: configure script confused by gcc-3.2

2002-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
This is fixed in 7.3beta. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Richard Lightman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3 > The lower the number the more severe it is. > > Short Description > configure script confus

Re: [BUGS] SET autocommit begins transaction?

2002-09-28 Thread Sean Chittenden
> > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but > > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help > > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN > > > > to start the transaction even when autocommit is off. > > > > >

Re: [BUGS] SET autocommit begins transaction?

2002-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > > > But it seems so illogical that SET doesn't start a transaction, but > > > > > if it is in a transaction, it is rolled back, and this doesn't help > > > > > our statement_timeout example except to require that they do BEGIN > > > > > to start the transaction even wh

Re: [BUGS] SET autocommit begins transaction?

2002-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sean Chittenden wrote: >> Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new >> transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc > It is still an open item, but I think there was agreement that SET will > not start a transac

Re: [BUGS] SET autocommit begins transaction?

2002-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sean Chittenden wrote: > >> Was there any resolution to this or are SET's still starting a new > >> transaction? I haven't seen any commits re: this, iirc. -sc > > > It is still an open item, but I think there was agreement that SE

[BUGS] Bug #789: Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups

2002-09-28 Thread pgsql-bugs
Jon Watte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups Long Description I see no mention of transaction archival logging in the documentation. This means that, even though you sup

Re: [BUGS] Bug #789: Transaction Archival Logging -- Hot Backups

2002-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
I see in the pg_dump manual page: pg_dump makes consistent backups even if the database is being used concurrently. pg_dump does not block other users accessing the database (readers or writers). --