The attached patch makes postgres build with Visual Studio 2012 RC.
As MS finally decided on the name I don't expect any need for changes
for the final RTM.
I didn't bother to update the docs for now as I still have some hope
that the developer community succeds in pushig M$ to reverse this d
Darren Duncan writes:
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> I knew that we create an entry in pg_type for every table we create,
>> what i didn't know is that we actually create 2 entries.
>> for example CREATE TABLE foo (i int); will create types foo and _foo.
>> so, any reason to create 2 entries?
> I don
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:52:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems that pg_upgrade needs a check to make sure that the bootstrap
>> superuser is named the same in old and new clusters.
> The attached patch adds checks to verify the the old/new servers have
> the same in
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:52:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bryan Murphy writes:
> > The old 9.0 cluster was created by ubuntu. In this cluster there was an
> > ubuntu user with an oid of 10 and a postgres user with an oid of 16386.
>
> > The new 9.1 cluster was created with a custom build of po
Jaime Casanova wrote:
I knew that we create an entry in pg_type for every table we create,
what i didn't know is that we actually create 2 entries.
for example CREATE TABLE foo (i int); will create types foo and _foo.
so, any reason to create 2 entries?
I don't know offhand; maybe its the corr
On 6/2/12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On the other hand, if we simply say "PostgreSQL computes the
>> replication delay by subtracting the time at which the WAL was
>> generated, as recorded on the master, from the time at which it is
>> replayed by the slave" then, hey, we still ha
Robert Haas writes:
> On the other hand, if we simply say "PostgreSQL computes the
> replication delay by subtracting the time at which the WAL was
> generated, as recorded on the master, from the time at which it is
> replayed by the slave" then, hey, we still have a wart, but it's
> pretty clear
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 31 May 2012 15:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If we want to finish the beta cycle in a reasonable time period
>>> and get back to actual development, we have to refrain from
>>> adding more possibly-destabilizing development work to 9.2. And
>>> that is what
> Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 27-05-2012 10:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> OK, let me propose another approach: add pg_size_pretty(int).
>> If we do this, all usability and performance problems will be
>> solved.
>
> I wouldn't like to add another function but if it solves both
> problems... +1.
It fix
