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.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: James William Pye||Date: 2006-02-12 03:54:15|
|Subject: python - fe: Clients can get PANIC ereports too.|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-02-12 03:30:21|
|Subject: pgsql: Fix more fallout from line-wrap patch, to wit, arbitrarily |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-02-12 03:39:44|
|Subject: Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line |
|Previous:||From: Sergey E. Koposov||Date: 2006-02-12 03:31:13|
|Subject: Re: TODO item -- Improve psql's handling of multi-line|