On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 13:15, Shigeru HANADA wrote:
> When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result.
> It would be because DR_copy's processed is not initialized in
> CreateCopyDestReceiver(). Please see attached patch.
Oops, thanks, applied.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
--
Sent vi
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:22:04 +0900
Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> Thanks comments. I've applied the COPY API patch.
When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result.
# Actually csv_branches has only 10 rows.
postgres=# copy (select * from csv_branches) to
'/home/hanada/DB/BINARY/branc
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 06:49 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg:
> >
> > CF 2011-03 (or whatever):
> > 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted
> > 2011-02-14: Reviewers
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:49, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
>
> I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I've been kind of wondering why you haven't already committed it. If
>> you're confident that the code is in good shape, I don't particularly
>> see any benefit to holding off.
>
> +10. The sooner the better.
Thanks comments. I've applied t
robertmh...@gmail.com (Robert Haas) writes:
> It does, but frankly I don't see much reason to change it, since it's
> been working pretty well on the whole. Andrew was on point when he
> mentioned that it's not obvious what committers get out of working on
> other people's patches. Obviously, the
On 02/15/2011 06:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
>> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
>> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
>> to be utterly broken if we don't do somet
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
> to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the
> client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; the
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg:
>
> CF 2011-03 (or whatever):
> 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted
> 2011-02-14: Reviewers start
> 2011-03-01: Committers start w/ 'Ready for Committer' patches
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> But the
> trickiest part of this whole process is that, on the one hand, it's
> not fair for committers to ignore other people's patches, but on the
> other hand, it's not fair to expect committers to sacrifice getting
> their own projects done to get
Sorry for the previous, content-free reply.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
>
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
>
>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I have to say that I've always been a bit suprised by the idea that the
> CommitFest is intended to be done and all patches *committed* at the end
> of the month. It's been working really rather well, which is due in
> great part to the exc
Robert Haas writes:
> We have committed 45 patches and returned with feedback or rejected
> 23. There are 30 remaining patches, every single one of which has
> been reviewed. 20 of those are marked Ready for Committer; 5 are
> marked Waiting on Author; 5 are marked Needs Review. However, again,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest.
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant '2011-02-14' there. :)
> So there are two basic difficulties wi
15 matches
Mail list logo