On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> Couldn't we adopt
>> AssertVariableIsOfType()/AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro() to macros like
>> READ_UINT_FIELD()?
>>
>> I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
>> infrastructure so far.
>
> The reason it's only
Noah,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> Rather than commit on an emergency basis in the few hours between these +1's
> and the wrap, I kept to my original schedule. FYI, if it hadn't required
> emergency procedures (cancelling the day's plans so I could get to a notebook
> computer), I wo
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 09:57:52AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 09:55 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:31:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> That being the case, it would probably be a good idea to get
> >>> them done be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/2015 09:55 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:31:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That being the case, it would probably be a good idea to get
>>> them done before alpha2, as there m
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Couldn't we adopt
> AssertVariableIsOfType()/AssertVariableIsOfTypeMacro() to macros like
> READ_UINT_FIELD()?
>
> I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
> infrastructure so far.
The reason it's only used there is that Andres is the one who
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
> > infrastructure so far.
>
> On second thought, having tried it, one reason is that that breaks
> things that are considered legitimate for h
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:31:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That being the case, it would probably be a good idea to get them done
> > before alpha2, as there may not be a good opportunity afterwards.
>
> Freedom to bump catversion after alpha2 will be b
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:31:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Noah,
> >> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
> >> INT/UINT or field order corrections. The non-cosmetic changes involve
> >> CustomPath, CustomScan, and CreatePolicyStmt
Stephen Frost writes:
> Noah,
>> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
>> INT/UINT or field order corrections. The non-cosmetic changes involve
>> CustomPath, CustomScan, and CreatePolicyStmt. Feature committers, if the
>> existing treatments (ignore custom_
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 01:32:10AM +, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:15AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
> >
> > A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
> > INT/UINT or field
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:15AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
>
> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
> INT/UINT or field order corrections. The non-cosmetic changes involve
> CustomPath, Custo
Noah,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:15AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
>
> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
> INT/UINT or field order corrections. The n
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'm surprised that this stuff was only ever used for logical decoding
> infrastructure so far.
On second thought, having tried it, one reason is that that breaks
things that are considered legitimate for historical reasons. For
example, Att
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
> INT/UINT or field order corrections.
I was responsible for a couple of the cosmetic ones. Sorry about that.
It occurs to me that we could do a little more to prevent
Noah Misch writes:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:15AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
> A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1].
Many thanks for doing that; I'd had the same checking on my personal to-do
list, but now will
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:25:15AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
A fresh audit found the attached problems new in 9.5[1]. Most are cosmetic
INT/UINT or field order corrections. The non-cosmetic changes involve
CustomPath, CustomScan, and C
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 18 11:47:37 -0300 2012:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I'd suggest backpatching the ReassignOwnedStmt() bits; the wrong code could
> > produce crashes. The rest are for master only.
>
> Done, in the manner you suggest.
Pa
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> I'd suggest backpatching the ReassignOwnedStmt() bits; the wrong code could
> produce crashes. The rest are for master only.
Done, in the manner you suggest.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL
I observed these inconsistencies in node support functions:
- _copyReassignOwnedStmt() uses COPY_SCALAR_FIELD() on the string field
"newrole", and _equalReassignOwnedStmt() uses COMPARE_NODE_FIELD().
- _outCreateForeignTableStmt() calls _outCreateStmt() directly. This produces
the label "CRE
19 matches
Mail list logo
