| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(dot)wheeler(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 19:31:37 |
| Message-ID: | 87D29FD3-A668-46E2-98C4-F386F26E8069@pgexperts.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> Well that's the thing, probably by what I described below that. Namely
> get something working for 9.1 and after we know its good and solid see
> if we can back patch it. Unfeasible? If its really really simple and
> straight forward maybe we can find a -commiter willing to commit it
> sooner. But I'm dubious. I think the feeling between me and Tim is
> patching postgres is a last resort... Maybe if its to fix both sort
> {} and this it might be worth it. (That's at least how I parsed what
> you said :) ). Ill see if I can figure something out via straight
> Safe tonight.
I think Tom meant, what sorts of changes to PostgreSQL do you think might solve the problem?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-25 19:47:56 | Re: BUG #5338: PG_DUMP fails due to invalid adnum value |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-25 19:29:33 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |