Horton

Thread

  1. Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> — 2005-03-24T16:35:14Z

    Now that Tom has gotten the ARC->2Q changes into the 8.0.x Branch, and 
Josh has had some time to do some preliminary performance testing on it, 
we need to put out 8.0.2 ...

Core's hope is to wrap a beta up on Friday (tomorrow), and baring any bugs 
found in it, do a full release next Thursday.

The reason for the gap is to give a bit of extra testing time due to the 
ARC->2Q changes ...

Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

  2. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> — 2005-03-24T17:06:12Z

    On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:35:14PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?

Has anybody had a chance to review the PL/Python patch I submitted?
I did the diff against HEAD but I think its PL/Python code is
identical to REL8_0_STABLE.  If the patch is acceptable then PL/Python
users connecting to PostgreSQL via Windows clients should benefit
from it being in 8.0.2.

-- 
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

  3. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-03-24T18:29:36Z

    Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:35:14PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > 
> > Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?
> 
> Has anybody had a chance to review the PL/Python patch I submitted?
> I did the diff against HEAD but I think its PL/Python code is
> identical to REL8_0_STABLE.  If the patch is acceptable then PL/Python
> users connecting to PostgreSQL via Windows clients should benefit
> from it being in 8.0.2.

I will look at it today.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

  4. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> — 2005-03-25T08:08:43Z

     http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php

 Add it to 8.0.2 or 8.1?

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>

  5. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-03-25T08:29:51Z

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
>  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php

I intend to look at that tomorrow.  Meanwhile, have you got a fix
for bug#1500?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

			regards, tom lane

  6. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> — 2005-03-25T09:14:09Z

    On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
> >  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php
> 
> I intend to look at that tomorrow.  Meanwhile, have you got a fix
> for bug#1500?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>

  7. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-03-25T19:08:48Z

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I intend to look at that tomorrow.  Meanwhile, have you got a fix
>> for bug#1500?
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

> Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(

I looked at this and found the problem is that dch_date() isn't
defending itself against the possibility that tm->tm_mon is zero,
as it well might be for an interval.  What do you think about
just adding

        case DCH_MONTH:
+           if (!tm->tm_mon)
+               return 0;
            strcpy(workbuff, months_full[tm->tm_mon - 1]);
            sprintf(inout, "%*s", S_FM(suf) ? 0 : -9, str_toupper(workbuff));
            if (S_FM(suf))
                return strlen(p_inout) - 1;
            else
                return 8;

and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?
This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
which is probably as good as we can do.

			regards, tom lane

  8. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> — 2005-03-25T23:48:49Z

    On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I intend to look at that tomorrow.  Meanwhile, have you got a fix
> >> for bug#1500?
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php
> 
> > Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(
> 
> I looked at this and found the problem is that dch_date() isn't
> defending itself against the possibility that tm->tm_mon is zero,
> as it well might be for an interval.  What do you think about
> just adding
> 
>         case DCH_MONTH:
> +           if (!tm->tm_mon)
> +               return 0;

> and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?

Yes, I think you're right. It's because original code was for non-
interval 'tm' struct where is no problem with zeros.

> This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
> which is probably as good as we can do.

Yes. The final solution will be remove all to_char(interval) stuff in
8.1.

Thanks Tom,

	Karel

-- 
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>

  9. Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-03-26T00:44:01Z

    Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
>> What do you think about just adding
>> 
>> case DCH_MONTH:
>> +           if (!tm->tm_mon)
>> +               return 0;

>> and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?

> Yes, I think you're right. It's because original code was for non-
> interval 'tm' struct where is no problem with zeros.

OK, patch applied.  (I had it wrong above, correct return value is -1.)

			regards, tom lane