On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:39:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, point taken. I'll go apply that to the back-branches as well.
And done.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:24:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's reasonable to doubt that this is the only problem the affected
> applications would have with such a server, too. I don't see a lot
> of point in "fixing" this code unless somebody actually tests that.
Okay, point taken. I'll go ap
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 10:23:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The originally-complained-of breakage exists in all active branches,
>> so is it really OK to commit this only in HEAD?
> I did not think that it would be that critical for back-branches, but
> I don't mind goi
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 10:23:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The originally-complained-of breakage exists in all active branches,
> so is it really OK to commit this only in HEAD?
I did not think that it would be that critical for back-branches, but
I don't mind going ahead and remove the code ther
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 05:39:18PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> I'm definitely done for today.
> Looks good to me, so committed.
The originally-complained-of breakage exists in all active branches,
so is it really OK to commit this only in HEAD?
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 05:39:18PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I'm definitely done for today.
Looks good to me, so committed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > WFM. Updated patch attached, I also removed another similar chunk in
> > the same file while at it.
>
> Uh, that looks backwards:
Argh, sorry :(
I'm definitely done for today.
fix_appendQualifiedRelation-v4.diff
De
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> WFM. Updated patch attached, I also removed another similar chunk in
> the same file while at it.
Uh, that looks backwards:
@@ -146,10 +146,6 @@ connectDatabase(const char *dbname, const char *pghost,
exit(1);
}
- if (PQserverVersion(conn
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 3:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:32:44AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Why do we even have code referring to pre-7.3 servers? Wouldn't it be
> >> simpler just to remove that code?
>
> > Even for pg_dump, we only support
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:32:44AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Why do we even have code referring to pre-7.3 servers? Wouldn't it be
>> simpler just to remove that code?
> Even for pg_dump, we only support servers down to 8.0. Let's nuke
> this code.
+1. I think p
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:32:44AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Why do we even have code referring to pre-7.3 servers? Wouldn't it be
> > simpler just to remove that code?
>
> Even for pg_dump, we only support servers down to 8.0. L
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:32:44AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Why do we even have code referring to pre-7.3 servers? Wouldn't it be
> simpler just to remove that code?
Even for pg_dump, we only support servers down to 8.0. Let's nuke
this code.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP sign
On 5/6/19 4:17 AM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:04 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems that 582edc369cd caused $subject.
>>
>> Trivial fix attached, though I obviously didn't actually test it
>> against such server.
> Ahem, correct fix attached. I'm going to get
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:04 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems that 582edc369cd caused $subject.
>
> Trivial fix attached, though I obviously didn't actually test it
> against such server.
Ahem, correct fix attached. I'm going to get a coffee and hide for
the rest of the day.
fix_a
14 matches
Mail list logo
