From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.3.1 issues |
Date: | 1998-04-05 17:06:18 |
Message-ID: | 3527BA0A.71FCB42D@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > indexes not used that were used in 6.2(fixed)
> > > > memory leak in backend when run on simple queries(fixed)
> > > > negative sign causing problems in various areas
> > > > configure assert checking is reversed
> > > > UNION crashes on ORDER BY or DISTINCT
> I would think we are safer by releasing a new diff. The char2-16
> changes are the only ones I know of that should not have been applied
> (by me!), so we can back them out. Just seems it is too easy to miss
> some part of the patch.
Well, we have the other side of the problem to worry about too: that
with changes in the source tree, there may be unanticipated interactions
with other patches when we are really trying to fix only 5 specific
problems.
I would like to do a test with specific patches on a clean v6.3.1
installation, and then we can compare the patches from my test with
patches from the CVS extraction. I'll isolate my "negative sign" fixes
(which I haven't yet committed to the source tree, but which I think
just need a reversion of scan.l/scan.c to the v6.3 release).
Can you (re)send me the patches for these others? I still have the
"memory leak" patches, but can't remember who posted the "index" and
"UNION" patches (were they all yours Bruce?? Probably gone from my mail
anyway).
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-05 17:46:06 | Re: [QUESTIONS] money * money? |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-05 15:44:07 | Re: [HACKERS] On improving OO support in posgresql and relaxing oid bottleneck at the same time |