2011/10/1 Tom Lane :
> Daniel Farina writes:
>> This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
>
>> I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
>> review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
>
Daniel Farina writes:
> This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
> I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
> review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
> just pg_cancel_backend as n
I wrote:
> So what I'm thinking we ought to do is redefine things so that
> initGISTstate sets fn_mcxt to a context that has the same lifespan as
> the GISTSTATE itself does. We could possibly eliminate a few retail
> pfree's in the process, eg by keeping the GISTSTATE itself in that same
> contex
This patch would appear(?) to have languished:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
I'd really like to see it included. In the last comments of the
review, there seem to be problems in *terminate* backend, but even
just pg_cancel_backend as non-superuser would be just a hug
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> If the feature could not be done another way, easily, I might agree.
>
> I don't see that you've offered a reasonable alternative. The
> alternative proposals that you proposed don't appe
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If the feature could not be done another way, easily, I might agree.
I don't see that you've offered a reasonable alternative. The
alternative proposals that you proposed don't appear to me to be
solving the same problem. AIUI, the requested
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
>>
>> I repeat my objection to this patch. I'm very sorry I haven't been
>> around
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
>
> I repeat my objection to this patch. I'm very sorry I haven't been
> around much in last few weeks to keep up a dialogue about this and to
I regret that as a part-timer recently brought back on here I didn't
get an opportunity to test this earlier. The upgrade with the patch
worked fine on my first attempt.
Thanks again,
Jamie
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jamie Fox wrote:
>> Thanks, I'm following the th
I wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov writes:
>> Isn't it possible to cache signature of newitem in gtrgm_penalty
>> like gtrgm_consistent do this for query?
> [ studies that code for awhile ... ] Ick, what a kluge.
> The main problem with that code is that the cache data gets leaked at
> the conclusio
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:22:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:22:03AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Robert Haas ?09/25/11 10:58 AM >>>
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure we've been 100% consistent about that, since we
>
Great, thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/fix-for-pg-upgrade-tp3411128p4856336.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Ok, I send this patch to comitters.
I repeat my objection to this patch. I'm very sorry I haven't been
around much in last few weeks to keep up a dialogue about this and to
make it clear how wrong I think this is.
Adding something onto
13 matches
Mail list logo
