Sawada Masahiko writes:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> er ... what?
> Sorry for confusing you.
> Anyway I meant that I got SEGV after applied WIP patch, and the cause
> is the above changes.
> The case is following.
> 1. Add "port = 6543" to postgresql.conf and restart se
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> However there's a further tweak to the view that I'd like to think about
>>> making. Once this is in and we make the originally-discussed change to
>>> suppress a
Sawada Masahiko writes:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However there's a further tweak to the view that I'd like to think about
>> making. Once this is in and we make the originally-discussed change to
>> suppress application of duplicated GUC entries, it would be possibl
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Combining this with my idea about preserving the ConfigVariable list,
>>> I'm thinking that it would be a good idea for ProcessConfigFile() to
>>> run in a context crea
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What we evidently need to do is fix things so that the pg_file_settings
> >> data gets captured before we suppress duplicates.
> >>
> >> The simplest change would be
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Combining this with my idea about preserving the ConfigVariable list,
>> I'm thinking that it would be a good idea for ProcessConfigFile() to
>> run in a context created for the purpose of processing the config files,
>> ra
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What we evidently need to do is fix things so that the pg_file_settings
>> data gets captured before we suppress duplicates.
>>
>> The simplest change would be to move the whole thing to around line 208 in
>> guc-file.l, j
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I looked into bug #13471, which states that we gripe about multiple
> occurrences of the same variable in postgresql.conf + related files.
> Now, that had clearly been fixed some time ago:
>
> Author: Fujii Masao
> Branch: master [e3da0d4d1] 20
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Combining this with my idea about preserving the ConfigVariable list,
> I'm thinking that it would be a good idea for ProcessConfigFile() to
> run in a context created for the purpose of processing the config files,
> rather than blindly using the
I wrote:
> The simplest change would be to move the whole thing to around line 208 in
> guc-file.l, just after the stanza that loads PG_AUTOCONF_FILENAME. Or you
> could argue that the approach is broken altogether, and that we should
> capture the data while we read the files, so that you have so
I looked into bug #13471, which states that we gripe about multiple
occurrences of the same variable in postgresql.conf + related files.
Now, that had clearly been fixed some time ago:
Author: Fujii Masao
Branch: master [e3da0d4d1] 2014-08-06 14:49:43 +0900
Branch: REL9_4_STABLE Release: REL9_4_0
11 matches
Mail list logo
