[HACKERS] CVS to Git conversion: second try Monday

We will take another run at converting our CVS repository to Git on Monday (the 20th). Hopefully this won't interfere too much with the commitfest, since most work will still be on reviewing rather than actual committing at that point. As before, there will be a "quiet time" to let interested peo

[HACKERS] CVS to GIT conversion - repository freeze

Hello! Here's a reminder, as requested: As of now (14:00 GMT), the cvs repository is frozen. This means that no new commits may be made to the cvs repository anymore! It is still possible to do a cvs update or log or such operations, but please - no more commits until we have the git stuff up and

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

* Aidan Van Dyk [100715 13:56]: > * Marko Kreen [100715 13:49]: > > > Eh. I stand corrected - what it actually does is even more > > bizarre - it stores whatever is on the disk, but then > > expands on re-write. So: > > > > - r1.1 contains $Id$ in the repo. > > - r1.2 contains $Id: 1.1$ in t

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

* Marko Kreen [100715 13:49]: > Eh. I stand corrected - what it actually does is even more > bizarre - it stores whatever is on the disk, but then > expands on re-write. So: > > - r1.1 contains $Id$ in the repo. > - r1.2 contains $Id: 1.1$ in the repo. > > and so on... It's actually slightl

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On 7/15/10, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Marko Kreen wrote: > > On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Robert Haas writes: > > > > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that > > > > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just > say > > > > $PostgreSQL$ ra

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Marko Kreen wrote: On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say > $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. Really? All of the

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On 7/7/10, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that > > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say > > $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. > > > Really? All of them? Seems like

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Hi, On 07/07/2010 08:31 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Personally I favor leaving the expanded keywords in what we import, so that there's an exact mapping between what's in the final CVS repo and what's in the inital git repo, and then removing them entirely. I don't see that having old keyword expa

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 16:40, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page writes: >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big >>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing >>> them. In this

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 20:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that >> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded.  They just say >> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$.  I'm all in >> f

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Robert Haas wrote: So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. I'm all in favor of removing them, but it would be nice if we could avoid clutteri

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that >> the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded.  They just say >> $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. > > Really?  All of them

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Tom Lane wrote: >>> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big >>> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing >>> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do >>> now, but it also means if you do "git diff" between

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Robert Haas writes: > So what happens right now using the existing git repository is that > the $PostgeSQL$ tags are there, but they're unexpanded. They just say > $PostgreSQL$ rather than $PostgreSQL: tgl blah blah$. Really? All of them? Seems like that would have taken some intentional proce

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

* Dave Page [100707 05:05]: > > +1 for #1. Changing history and the resulting possibility of becoming > one's own grandfather always makes me nervous. But, since we're already using CVS, our grandfather is already our granddaughter... I'll just point out that if you "expand" the CVS keywords in

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've > all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I > don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old* > keywords. We did say we want

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > One point that isn't completely clear from Magnus' description is > whether we should remove the $PostgreSQL$ lines from the HEAD branch > only, or from the still-active back branches as well.  I vote for the > latter --- that is, if you pull a his

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Dave Page writes: > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big >> commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing >> them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

Magnus Hagander wrote: In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old* keywords. We did say we want to be able to reproduce backbranches/

Re: [HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 1) We can migrate the repository with the keywords, and then make one big > commit just after (or before, that doesn't make a difference) removing > them. In this case, backbranches and tags look exactly like they do > now, but it also mean

[HACKERS] cvs to git migration - keywords

In the previous discussions of how to migrate from cvs to git, we've all agreed we should kill the keyword expansion that we have now. I don't think, however, that we ever decided what to do with the *old* keywords. We did say we want to be able to reproduce backbranches/tags *identically* to what

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

M Z wrote: Final, I tried: $ cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -r REL8_3_STABLE -P pgsql Checked file configure.in . Around line 20, there is line: AC_INIT([PostgreSQL], [8.3.9], [pgsql-b...@postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

Thanks Robert, Your reply helps a lot. Just right after sending post, I found the way to list all branches in the CVS server. Best, M Z On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM, M Z wrote: > > Final, I tried: > > > > $ cvs -z3 -d > > :pserver:anonc

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM, M Z wrote: > Final, I tried: > > $ cvs -z3 -d > :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -r > REL8_3_STABLE -P pgsql > > Checked file configure.in. Around line 20, there is line: >  AC_INIT([PostgreSQL], [8.3.9], [pgsql-b...@postgresql.

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

Final, I tried: $ cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -r REL8_3_STABLE -P pgsql Checked file configure.in. Around line 20, there is line: AC_INIT([PostgreSQL], [8.3.9], [pgsql-b...@postgresql.org]) Not sure that indicates version 8.3.9? But still, i

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

Hi Andrew and all, I am still struggling with the branch repositories. I tried to checkout from branch repositories but got error no such repositories: $ cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/REL8_4_STABLE co -P pgsql /projects/REL8_4_STABLE: no such repository

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

The only sane things to check out apart from HEAD are normally the STABLE branches. For release m.n those are always called RELm_n_STABLE. You can also get the tag set for a specific release. Those are called RELm_n_o for m.n.o releases. If you look at the output for "cvs log configure.in" y

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

For example, how can I list all the branches for postgresql 8.3 (and 8.4)? Now I can checkout code using: cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -P pgsql But I don't know when version it is, and I want get code from some postgresql 8.3 and 8.4 branches but

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

Hi Andrew, Could you please give a little more detail how I can find different CVS branches? Thanks, M Z On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > M Z wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to checkout code from different branches (such as 8.3, 8.4). >> >> I found a few ways to

Re: [HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

M Z wrote: Hi, I am trying to checkout code from different branches (such as 8.3, 8.4). I found a few ways to checkout code from CVS: 1. webCVS: http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/ 2. cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -P pgsql 3. $ rsy

[HACKERS] CVS checkout source code for different branches

Hi, I am trying to checkout code from different branches (such as 8.3, 8.4). I found a few ways to checkout code from CVS: 1. webCVS: http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/ 2. cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anoncvs:passw...@anoncvs.postgresql.org:/projects/cvsroot co -P pgsql 3. $ rsync --progress -avz

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander escribió: > 2009/12/7 Tom Lane : > > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least > >> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS > >> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally > >> ba

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

2009/12/7 Tom Lane : > Magnus Hagander writes: >> I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least >> the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS >> documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally >> backpatch things like this though, so co

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander writes: > I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least > the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS > documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally > backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? The sort o

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:08:28PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 2009/11/26 Tom Lane : > > Magnus Hagander writes: > >> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but > >> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? > > > > I agree that we needn't try to cover ma

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

2009/11/26 Tom Lane : > Magnus Hagander writes: >> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but >> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? > > I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. > As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence

[HACKERS] CVS HEAD: Error accessing system column from plpgsql trigger function

With CVS HEAD, I'm getting the following error when I try to access a system column from within trigger (which I'm doing just for debug purposes): create table foo (a int); create or replace function foo_trig_fn() returns trigger as $$ begin raise notice 'In trigger: added %', new.ctid; retur

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Chris Browne wrote: Wikis have a habit of getting out of date in ways that make them even more difficult to rectify, because the data is frequently structured in a way that doesn't make it particularly easy to pull it out and transform it into other forms. The standard way to backup a Mediawik

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Brendan Jurd wrote: > 2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian : >> Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software: ;-) >> >> This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading >> a tar.gz file; expect it to take 40 minutes >> or so if you have a 28.8K modem. > > Yes, and what ab

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

2009/11/29 Bruce Momjian : > Wow, we mention 28k modems --- we are legacy software:  ;-) > >     This initial checkout is a little slower than simply downloading >     a tar.gz file; expect it to take 40 minutes >     or so if you have a 28.8K modem. Yes, and what about all the people using carrie

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things > >> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The > >> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the > >> part ab

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Bruce Momjian writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things >> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The >> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the >> part about 28K modems is pretty sil

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Robert Haas wrote: > I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things > from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The > documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the > part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that witho

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

pete...@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes: > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes >> a few very out of date comments about cvs > >

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Magnus Hagander writes: > I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but > what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching and

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 16:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things >>> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki.  The >>> documentation is better-written and easier to

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things >> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The >> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. > I agree in general, but information abou

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting >> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate >> instructions on the web site. > > I have to say I'm not really impre

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in ou

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, > >> around where we have several chapters abo

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes >> a few very out of date comments a

Re: [HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, > around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes > a few very out of date comments about cvs I think this whole chapter could be removed and the

[HACKERS] cvs chapters in our docs

Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation, around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes a few very out of date comments about cvs (really, nobody has a 28k8 modem and does cvs over it today. Even your cellphone is orders of magnitude faster than

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

On fre, 2009-11-13 at 14:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On fre, 2009-11-13 at 15:05 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > >> As per Tom's - yes, this laptop has LANG set to UTF8 Polish. Setting > >> it back to EN actually makes this error go away. > > > The Polish locale

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

On 13 Nov 2009, at 19:39, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On fre, 2009-11-13 at 15:05 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: >>> As per Tom's - yes, this laptop has LANG set to UTF8 Polish. Setting >>> it back to EN actually makes this error go away. > >> The Polish locale isn't suppo

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On fre, 2009-11-13 at 15:05 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: >> As per Tom's - yes, this laptop has LANG set to UTF8 Polish. Setting >> it back to EN actually makes this error go away. > The Polish locale isn't supported by the regression tests. With only one result

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

On fre, 2009-11-13 at 15:05 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > As per Tom's - yes, this laptop has LANG set to UTF8 Polish. Setting > it back to EN actually makes this error go away. The Polish locale isn't supported by the regression tests. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacke

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

Dnia czwartek 12 listopad 2009 o 22:14:14 Andrew Dunstan napisał(a): > Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: > > consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). > > + ERROR: incompatible library > "/home/kgrittn/postgresql-8.4.0/src/test/regress/refint.so": version > mismatch > + DETAIL

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: Dnia czwartek 12 listopad 2009 o 22:14:14 Andrew Dunstan napisał(a): Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). + ERROR: incompatible library "/home/kgrittn/postgresql-8.4.0/src/test/regress/re

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

Grzegorz Jaskiewicz writes: > consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). Locale issue maybe? Looks like it has some odd ideas about text sort order. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To mak

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). + ERROR: incompatible library "/home/kgrittn/postgresql-8.4.0/src/test/regress/refint.so": version mismatch + DETAIL: Server is version 8.4, library is version 8.3. You might take this as

[HACKERS] cvs head doesn't pass make check on one of the machines here

consistently fails when compiled on ubuntu 9.10 here (on mini 10v). regression.diffs.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] CVS Head parser error?

Tatsuo Ishii writes: > I got following with CVS Head parser. I'm using bison 2.1 and flex > 2.5.35. Am I missing something? Hmm, are you sure that scan.c got remade? I didn't check in detail, but the errors look a bit like what would happen if the older scanner code got recompiled against curren

Re: [HACKERS] CVS Head parser error?

Sorry for noise. I regenerated scan.c and gram.c and now everything works fine. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > I got following with CVS Head parser. I'm using bison 2.1 and flex > 2.5.35. Am I missing something? > > make[3]: Entering directory > `/usr/local/src/pgsql/current/pgsql/src/bac

[HACKERS] CVS Head parser error?

I got following with CVS Head parser. I'm using bison 2.1 and flex 2.5.35. Am I missing something? make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/pgsql/current/pgsql/src/backend/parser' gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -I. -I../../../src/include

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Tom, On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:17:18 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: o...@pyrenet.fr Cc: Heikki Linnakangas , Zdenek Kotala , pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware o...@pyrenet.fr writes: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

* Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081210 12:29]: >> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm >> members. This would be a 100% waste of cycles for gcc-based members >> anyway, since gcc generates the same code with or without -g. However, >> for compilers where

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Zdenek Kotala wrote: Tom Lane napsal(a): [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different compiler version? it's configured with --enable-debug. Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Wednesday 10 December 2008 19:36:38 Tom Lane wrote: > Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane napsal(a): > >> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm > >> members. > > > > I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would > >

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 06:27:05PM +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote: > I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would > like to compile postgres on one machine with three different compiler and > in 32 or 64 mode. Should I have 6 animals? I think better idea is to have > one a

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane napsal(a): >> No, the standard way to deal with such issues is to set up two buildfarm >> members. > I think current infrastructures is not good for it. For example I would like > to > compile postgres on one machine with three different compi

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Never saw a problem with gcc, hp-ux, darwin or M$? > Sure, that's not what I was saying. My point is, when there's a bug in > one version of a compiler, we shouldn't try to adapt PostgreSQL to that > bug. Instead, we sh

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Tom Lane napsal(a): [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different compiler version? it's configured with --enable-debug. Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-debug once without. N

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfarm member? Different compiler >> version? >> > it's configured with --enable-debug. > Maybe run_build.pl should run twice, onece with --enable-debug once > without. No, the st

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who knows what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail into a small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the compiler vendor

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:00:31 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who knows > > what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail into a > > small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the compiler > > vendor? > >

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the > >> interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this > >> patch to see if it gets around it. (This is a tad better

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Heikki Linnakangas wrote: I find it pretty scary to work around compiler bugs like this. Who knows what other code it miscompiles. Can you reduce fsm_search_avail into a small stand-alone test program, and file a bug report with the compiler vendor? BTW, why does this work on warthog buildfar

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this patch to see if it gets around it. (This is a tad better anyway since it avoids examining the right c

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Dear Tom, On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:24:21 -0500 From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > FWIW, I have attached the 2 generated .s. Someone with knowledge of asm > may want to have a look.. Hmm. It looks to me like the compiler is getting confused by the interaction between nodeno, leftnodeno, and rightnodeno. Try this patch to see if it gets around it.

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, so the problem is in that second loop. The trick is to pick some >> reasonably non-ugly code change that makes the problem go away. >I tried that and moving leftok,rightok declaration outside the loop, and > refactor the

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> pgsql-hackers list >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> writes: >>> Guess what! with th

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:23:06 -0500 From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Guess what! with the fprintf .. descending node... in place, everything > goes well. The optimizer definitly does something weird along the > definition/assignement of leftok/rightok.. Hmm, so the problem is in that second loop. The trick is to pick some reasonably n

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a): I first misread your mail, and added only the first fprintf , while I was uploading a 400M initdb.log, I went back to add the second one. Guess what! with the fprintf .. descending node... in place, everything goes well. The optimizer definitly does something we

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Hi Tom, On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:15:28 -0500 From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs he

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > the infinite loop occurs in fsm_search_avail when called for the 32nd > time. ... which is the first time that the initial test doesn't make it fall out immediately. Would you add a couple more printouts, along the line of nodeno = target; while (nod

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Dear all, On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:17:52 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKER

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As you can see in attached initdb.log, it seems fsm_search_avail is called repeatedly and args are sort of looping... That's expected, since the system is inserting a lot of tuples successively. Right. I suspect it was in the infinite loop yet. Try

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > As you can see in attached initdb.log, it seems fsm_search_avail is called > repeatedly and args are sort of looping... That's expected, since the system is inserting a lot of tuples successively. What it looks like to me is that the failing call is the first one wher

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:19:15 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware [EMAIL PROT

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Could you zip up the FSM file of that relation (a file called e.g "789_fsm"), and send it over? Or the whole data directory, it shouldn't be that big. you get both. Thanks. Hmm, the FSM pages are full of zeros, as I wo

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:01 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware [EMAIL PROT

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> Looking at fsm_rebuild_page, I wonder if the compiler is treating > >> "int" as an unsigned integer? That would cause an infinite loop. > >> > >> > > No, a simple printf of nodeno shows it starting at 4096 all the way > > down to 0

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:47:19 +0200 From: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Zdenek Kotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pgsql-hackers list Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cvs head ini

Re: [HACKERS] cvs head initdb hangs on unixware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking at fsm_rebuild_page, I wonder if the compiler is treating "int" as an unsigned integer? That would cause an infinite loop. No, a simple printf of nodeno shows it starting at 4096 all the way down to 0, starting back at 4096... I wonder if leftchild/righ

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >