On sön, 2010-05-09 at 17:37 +, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >it would be
> >better if Bryan could show us a concrete example that is causing
> >problems.
>
> I don't know how concrete you want.
Something one can download and compile.
> A user defined function server extension
> #includes a heade
On mån, 2010-05-10 at 02:02 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't see any other conflicts offhand that would create problems
> using a c99 compiler to build server modules. It's quite annoying and
> sad that they added "bool" to c99 since otherwise it would just be a
> drop-in replacement with extra f
Hello, Tom.
You wrote:
TL> Pavel Golub writes:
>> TL> I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. Do you want us to
>> TL> add a close() just before exit()? If so, what for?
>> First of all, for uniformity I guess. :) .backup files are closed
>> properly.
>> And secondly, I'm using
>>> I don't know how concrete you want.
>
>Something one can download and compile.
That wouldn't be worth anyone's effort, since the problem is esaily enough
elucidated with a few words of explanation. I.e. I'm sure you can imagine
writing a program that would demonstrate the problem of two heade
>>> It's quite annoying and
>>> sad that they added "bool" to c99 since otherwise it would just be a
>>> drop-in replacement with extra functionality and very low risk of
>>> conflicts. Instead they virtually guaranteed conflicts with any large
>>> software over a single define.
>
>For that reason
Takahiro Itagaki writes:
> Thanks for the report! Please check whether the attached patch
> is the correct fix. An additional regression test is included.
That's going to provoke "uninitialized variable" compiler warnings,
but otherwise it seems reasonably sane.
I don't particularly see the poi
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem is there's no real support inside psql for "throwing an
> error" --- we have to unwind all the state manually. In particular,
> what this problem requires is backing out the stack of flex buffers
> representing pending variable expansi
Tom Lane wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki writes:
> > Thanks for the report! Please check whether the attached patch
> > is the correct fix. An additional regression test is included.
>
> That's going to provoke "uninitialized variable" compiler warnings,
> but otherwise it seems reasonably sane.
I
