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: | 5432.907642176@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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
anything.
>> 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?
list...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1998-10-06 02:50:56 | select * from ..;vacuum crashes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-06 02:23:13 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |