Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Philip, I see you applied some pg_dump patches yesterday. Have you
>> resolved all your outstanding issues, or is there still more you want
>> to do before 7.1.2?
> Everything I know about is resolved.
Okay, good. I did some experimentation this aft
At 13:47 12/05/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Philip, I see you applied some pg_dump patches yesterday. Have you
>resolved all your outstanding issues, or is there still more you want
>to do before 7.1.2?
>
Everything I know about is resolved.
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have not applied the latest pg_dump patches, and I'm still working on a
> problem with the view extract.
Philip, I see you applied some pg_dump patches yesterday. Have you
resolved all your outstanding issues, or is there still more you want
to do be
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Isn't this only critical for those that are using it? Does it affect
> > those that don't use plpgsql?
>
> No, but I think it's pretty critical for those that do ...
So, why not create a quick patch for tho
At 01:28 11/05/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes - it's waiting on the problem Zoltan reported (the select from
>> pg_rewrite etc). I can't reproduce the problem on any of my DBs.
>
>I've just realized that the problem is a lot simpler than it appears.
>Th
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes - it's waiting on the problem Zoltan reported (the select from
> pg_rewrite etc). I can't reproduce the problem on any of my DBs.
I've just realized that the problem is a lot simpler than it appears.
The given string is too long for a NAME:
regress
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I gather that the following code goes though the heap and removes all check
> contraints associated with a particular table, but how do I extend the code
> to match both a table relid and the constraint name?
Add another ScanKey. Look at us
At 22:43 10/05/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>(Philip, we are just talking about a few days, right?)
Yes - it's waiting on the problem Zoltan reported (the select from
pg_rewrite etc). I can't reproduce the problem on any of my DBs.
If worst comes to worst, I have a (nasty) workaround, but I'm more
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't this only critical for those that are using it? Does it affect
> those that don't use plpgsql?
No, but I think it's pretty critical for those that do ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I agree with you because the bug is very critical.
>
> Yes, I'd like to get that plpgsql bug fix out as soon as possible.
Isn't this only critical for those that are using it? Does it affect
those that don't us
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with you because the bug is very critical.
Yes, I'd like to get that plpgsql bug fix out as soon as possible.
But the pg_dump things that Philip is fixing are important too,
so I think we should wait a couple more days for those.
(Philip, we ar
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is fine. I am not crazy about doing it now either. It is just
> that Tom mentioned early in the week we need a release, and you said how
> about Friday. I will brand 7.1.2 so it is ready whenever we want it.
I think I said Friday, not Marc ... a
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Are we releasing tomorrow. I will stamp the CVS STABLE branch tonight
> as 7.1.2.
Not that I'm aware of ... I heard mention something about a couple of
fixes, but we *just* put out 7.1.1 ...
If ppl are affected by the bugs, use cvsup and set yoru tag
At 20:47 10/05/01 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Are we releasing tomorrow. I will stamp the CVS STABLE branch tonight
>as 7.1.2.
>
I have not applied the latest pg_dump patches, and I'm still working on a
problem with the view extract.
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
