|From:||Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> Thanks for this contribution!
>> I think it's a hard but important problem to upgrade these xids.
>> Unfortunately, I've confirmed that this patch
>> 0001-64bit-guc-relopt-3.patch doesn't apply correctly on my computer.
>> Here's what I did:
>> I did a "git pull" to the current HEAD, which is
>> Then I attempted to apply the patch, here's what I saw:
>> $ git apply patches/0001-64bit-guc-relopt-3.patch
>> error: src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c: already exists in working
>> error: src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c: already exists in working directory
>> error: src/include/access/reloptions.h: already exists in working
>> error: src/include/utils/guc.h: already exists in working directory
>> error: src/include/utils/guc_tables.h: already exists in working
>> Alexander, what is the process you're using to create the patch? I've
>> heard someone (maybe Tom Lane?) say that he sometimes uses "patch" directly
>> instead of "git" to create the patch, with better results. I forget the
>> exact command.
> I've created patches using context diff, as described in PostgreSQL wiki.
> I already noticed that it causing troubles to some community members who
> use 'git apply'. And also I noticed that majority of patches nowadays are
> sent using universal format. So, I decided to switch to universal format
> too. I'm working on rebasing patchset, that takes some time... Next
> revision will be sent in universal format.
Please, find in attachment the rebased patchset.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2018-01-09 20:11:26||Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2018-01-09 19:44:55||Re: [HACKERS] Removing LEFT JOINs in more cases|