-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> Could you do something like
> be_pid = pg_backend_pid() AS is_self_notify
> instead, to verify that it's a self-notify? (This is not quite right
> because you'd need to execute pg_backend_pid() at the remote end, but
> I'm no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> Sure, I guess I ought to use the latest-and-greatest. Any other comments
>> before I commit?
>
> That "be_pid/be_pid" hack in the regression test is pretty ugly, and
> doesn't test anything very useful anyway
Joe Conway writes:
> Sure, I guess I ought to use the latest-and-greatest. Any other comments
> before I commit?
That "be_pid/be_pid" hack in the regression test is pretty ugly, and
doesn't test anything very useful anyway seeing that it's integer
division. Could you do something like
be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joe Conway escribió:
>
>> OK, how's this look?
>
> Hmm, is it possible to use OUT parameters in the function instead of
> declaring a new type for the result?
Sure, I guess I ought to use the latest-and-greatest. Any other
Joe Conway escribió:
> OK, how's this look?
Hmm, is it possible to use OUT parameters in the function instead of
declaring a new type for the result?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 supp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ thinks for awhile... ] Actually, it seems to me that the present
> patch's definition of the function would be very hard to work with.
> You would normally want to work with the events one at a time.
> There isn't much you could
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) I couldn't see any way to assign myself as the committer.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, the webapp doesn't explicitly record the committer for a patch.
>> What I've been doing is adding a comment saying that I'm taking a patch
>>
Tom Lane wrote:
3) I couldn't see any way to assign myself as the committer.
Yeah, the webapp doesn't explicitly record the committer for a patch.
What I've been doing is adding a comment saying that I'm taking a patch
to commit. A separate field would probably be better though.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ thinks for awhile... ] Actually, it seems to me that the present
> patch's definition of the function would be very hard to work with.
> You would normally want to work with the events one at a time.
> There isn't much you could
Joe Conway writes:
> In reference to:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6534f7ae0811181547v1dc1f096g6222e8273b461...@mail.gmail.com
> Had to fix a lot of bit rot, but otherwise looks good. My updated patch
> attached. Will commit in a day or so if no objections.
After a quick look-over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joe Conway escribió:
>
>> 2) It would be nice if the mail archive web page of the original message
>> had a "Reply To" button. Otherwise I guess I can do what I've done above.
>
> I totally agree, but this is not workable gi
Joe Conway escribió:
> 2) It would be nice if the mail archive web page of the original message
> had a "Reply To" button. Otherwise I guess I can do what I've done above.
I totally agree, but this is not workable given our current software.
I've been giving some time to reworking the email archi
Joe Conway writes:
> BTW, some commitfest procedural comments/questions:
> 1) I couldn't figure out how to attach my patch to the commitfest page
> short of cut-n-paste into the small comment text box -- is that my only
> choice?
No, what you should do is first send the patch to -hackers, then p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
In reference to:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6534f7ae0811181547v1dc1f096g6222e8273b461...@mail.gmail.com
Had to fix a lot of bit rot, but otherwise looks good. My updated patch
attached. Will commit in a day or so if no objections.
BT
Hi,
status of the patch is that it's working fine / as expected.
As is the regression test, my only concern there is if it's testing the
functionality thoroughly enough. But at it's current state I suppose it's in
line with the rest of the regression tests for dblink functionality.
Also, please
What is the status on this?
---
Marcus Kempe wrote:
> This patch adds the ability to retrieve async notifications using dblink,
> via the addition of the function dblink_get_notify.
>
> It is written against cvs head, inclu
This patch adds the ability to retrieve async notifications using dblink,
via the addition of the function dblink_get_notify.
It is written against cvs head, includes documentation and regression
testing. It compiles, tests and works well.
I would be interested in some feedback on the regression
17 matches
Mail list logo
