Tom Lane wrote:
(B>
(B> "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(B> > I require you to explain me why you committed the change
(B> > with no discussion and little investigation.
(B>
(B> If you want an apology for not having discussed it in advance, I'll
(B> gladly offer one. It was po
Eric Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> any ideas here? 7.3.2 and 7.4beta3 compile just fine (I noticed that
> 7.4 has something more cross-platform for tas). What happened in 7.3.4
> that broke it?
That makes no sense at all --- AFAICT there were *no* darwin or ppc
specific changes between 7
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
(B>
(B> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:56:35AM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
(B> > First it should have been discussed before your commitment or at least
(B> > it should be discussed after reversing your change.
(B> >
(B> > I require you to explain me why you committed the chang
Florian,
if you set the transaction isolation level SERIALIZABLE in MySQL/InnoDB,
then InnoDB uses next-key locking in every SELECT, and transactions really
are serializable in the mathematical sense. I think the same holds for DB2
and MS SQL Server.
PostgreSQL and Oracle use a loophole of SQL-19
Tom Lane wrote:
we have fixed the first problem.
here is the next one ...
libm seems to be missing although it is installed (I have installed it
for running 7.3.4).
> It looks like -lm needs to be added to SHLIB_LINK in ecpglib/Makefile.
> I had already proposed this patch for SSL-enabled builds:
On Sep 21, 2003, at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, is anyone interested in looking into whether we can be made to
build without using either flag? I tried it and saw a number of
I did this... before I knew about -no-cpp-precomp. :( I read all
about -traditional-cpp in the gcc man page, but cou
On Sep 21, 2003, at 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Great. I was afraid it might have been new with 10.2.
Also, 7.3.4 doesn't link on the OS X 10.3 beta's. Apparently tas is
never being defined. I could never fix this. In the list archives I
found all sorts of references to tas()/TAS and older ve
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:56:35AM +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> First it should have been discussed before your commitment or at least
> it should be discussed after reversing your change.
>
> I require you to explain me why you committed the change
> with no discussion and little investigation.
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have tried to perform a regression test on AIX 5.1 (PostgreSQL 7.4beta3).
> I have encountered an error.
Ill-considered combination of #ifdefs apparently. I have applied the
attached patch.
regards,
Tom:
BTW, is anyone interested in looking into whether we can be made to
build without using either flag? I tried it and saw a number of
failures that looked like they traced to incompatible macro expansion.
This wouldn't surprise me if PG were some halfbaked package that only
got tested with stoc
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I require you to explain me why you committed the change
> with no discussion and little investigation.
If you want an apology for not having discussed it in advance, I'll
gladly offer one. It was poorly done.
I do, however, think that the reindexing
First it should have been discussed before your commitment or at least
it should be discussed after reversing your change.
I require you to explain me why you committed the change
with no discussion and little investigation.
I also noticed that your change for catalog/index.c
Revision 1.200
Marko Karppinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On lauantai, syys 20, 2003, at 23:37 Europe/Helsinki, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is anyone on the list still running OS X 10.1, or anyway still using a
>> version of the OS X developer tools older than the Dec 2002 release?
> -no-cpp-precomp replaced -traditio
On lauantai, syys 20, 2003, at 23:37 Europe/Helsinki, Tom Lane wrote:
Is anyone on the list still running OS X 10.1, or anyway still using a
version of the OS X developer tools older than the Dec 2002 release?
It would be good to check if -no-cpp-precomp creates any problems on
any release that any
I've been looking at the issues involved in reindexing system tables,
and I now have what I think is a fairly defensible set of proposals.
We should whenever possible use the same reindexing technique used by
CLUSTER: assign a new relfilenode number, build the new index in that
file, and apply an
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
"transaction block" vs. "BEGIN/END transaction block" -> Both are used, I
think the first one is better.
I vote for the second one.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free spa
I have tried to perform a regression test on AIX 5.1 (PostgreSQL 7.4beta3).
I have encountered an error.
gmake[3]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/shopnet/postgresql-7.4beta3/src/interfaces/libpq'
gmake[3]: Entering directory
`/usr/src/shopnet/postgresql-7.4beta3/src/interfaces/ecpg'
gmake -C include
I've looked through the messages in the backend and identified some areas
that still deserve some cleanup. Below I list some issues that deserve
some discussion or that deserve being remembered by other developers.
id, oid, pid-> ID, OID, PID
attribute -> column
tuple
It's rumoured that Christopher Kings-Lynne once said:
>> Wouldn't it be useful, though, to implement a "KILL" or "CANCEL" SQL
>> command that takes a backend ID as its argument (and, of course, does
>> the appropriate checks of whether you're a superuser or the owner of
>> the backend) and sends th
Tom,
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL not ACID compliant?
> "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > if you set the t
"Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you set the transaction isolation level SERIALIZABLE in MySQL/InnoDB,
> then InnoDB uses next-key locking in every SELECT, and transactions really
> are serializable in the mathematical sense.
My understanding is that next-key locking only helps when
21 matches
Mail list logo