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: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items
Date: 1998-10-06 02:49:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>> I can commit those changes tonight if I have the go-ahead.  Or I can
>> wait till post-6.4.  Your call.

> 	Go for it...that will at least get them off the list...

OK, the NOTIFY rewrite is checked in.  We'll see what breaks, if

>> flock is a release stopper as far as I'm concerned, because the backend
>> *does not compile* on my platform without diking out that code.

Actually, it looks like Vadim replaced the flock() call with fcntl() a
few weeks ago, and I'd not noticed because I had a locally modified copy
of pqcomm.c.  I don't know if fcntl(F_SETLK) is any more portable than
flock() --- it compiles on my platform, where flock() didn't, but that
proves little.  So I went ahead and put in an autoconf test, only
checking for fcntl(F_SETLK) rather than flock().  I still think the
process-pid-in-a-textfile approach to locking is safer, but we can
leave that for the next release.

That's two items off the must-fix list and onto the are-there-bugs?

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 1998-10-06 02:50:56
Subject: select * from ..;vacuum crashes
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-06 02:23:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group