Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This patch appears seriously broken, in particular every routine I
> >> looked at contained incorrect locking assumptions. Nor do I care
> >> for using pg_depend for the purposes it's being used for here.
> > OK, how do we proceed? Revert or apply a second patch?
> I'd say revert; the patch is going to need significant rework.
OK, patch reverted. Updated version attached. Please adjust and
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: James William Pye||Date: 2006-02-12 19:18:28|
|Subject: python - pq: Get rid of the superfluous 'Ignition' message.|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-02-12 19:13:19|
|Subject: pgsql: Not done: > o %Allow ALTER TABLE ...|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-02-12 19:24:09|
|Subject: Re: Patch to readme|
|Previous:||From: Sergey E. Koposov||Date: 2006-02-12 17:34:26|
|Subject: Re: patch fixing the old RETURN NEXT bug |