Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org (PostgreSQL-development)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items
Date: 1998-08-25 01:01:18
Message-ID: 25977.904006878@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> With the 6.4 beta just over a week away, here are the open items I see
> for 6.4.  We actually have fewer than usual, so that is a good thing. 

I had a few other things on my list:

* make PGconn,PGresult truly opaque to applications (per recent discussion)
* libpgtcl is missing any way to access PQerrorMessage!?
* remove writable fields in static PQconninfoOptions for thread safety
* bring libpq.sgml documentation fully up to speed

(I'm willing to do the above four, but am not promising that the doco
will get done before Sept 1.  I think Thomas indicated that Sept 15
is OK for docs?)

* put UNLISTEN in standard backend, fix libpgtcl listen support to use it

I would really like to see this in 6.4, because I need UNLISTEN in my
applications.  Thomas had volunteered to add the needed parser support
for UNLISTEN (the execution function already exists, it just needs a
statement that can call it).  As far as I've heard he hasn't gotten to
it yet.  I can fix libpgtcl but do not want to touch it unless the
underlying backend support is there.

* psql: control-c ought to stop lengthy output
* psql's \z output truncates table names at 16 chars
* psql and libpgtcl insert unexpected backslashes in output data

I was going to work on these but it's looking like they will not make
the Sept 1 cut.  Anyone else want to do them?


> change pg args for platforms that don't support argv changes
> 	(setproctitle()?, sendmail hack?)

I'd like to see this in there too, and will work on it if no one else
does, but I rather doubt I can get to it by Sept 1.  Maybe this will
have to wait for 6.5, or 6.4.1, or something.

			regards, tom lane

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-08-25 01:19:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb problems
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-08-24 22:03:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb problems

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group