Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR
От | C Wegrzyn |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 434FA346.2060505@garbagedump.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR
(Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
First, let me thank you for the effort you have been putting into the Postgresql development. It is a great system. It performs well and with the exception of a few little annoyances is a great competitor to Mysql or Oracle! This particular bug isn't a show stopper; I could have easily found a way around it if I wanted to. Instead I decided to fall back to 8.0.3 since this will be fixed hopefully in 8.0.5. But it did make me think of something else. I would like to make a suggestion, if you don't mind. I don't mind running the bleeding edge of things, and if you go to the gentoo bugs you will see quite a few posted by me. My suggestion - and it might be simply due to my not knowing where to look - is perhaps there should be a simple way to find the bugs that are still outstanding or when they resolved or how. On bugs.gentoo.org I can type in CUPS for example and find out everything - resolved, past and present and outstanding, bugs related to cups. I can find nothing on the postgresql site. FWIW, Chuck Wegrzyn Bruce Momjian wrote: >Michael Paesold wrote: > > >>[moved to hackers] >> >>Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new >>release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation? >> >>Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those >>it handled? I think "waiting for months" (i.e. for the next major bug fixes) >>is not the correct answer here. IMHO, the latest released version should be >>known best in all components. >> >> > >Yea, it is a regression, and yea, we hate when that happens. Let's see >how many people have a problem with it and we can review if we need a >minor release to fix it. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>Best Regards, >>Michael Paesold >> >> >>Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> >>>Michael Fuhr wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error, >>>>>but not if I do this: >>>>> >>>>> VARCHAR t[256]; >>>>> VARCHAR o[256]; >>>>> >>>>>ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>This appears to be the guilty commit, which was made to 7.4, 8.0, >>>>and HEAD (8.1): >>>> >>>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-08/msg00266.php >>>> >>>>It was recently fixed in HEAD only: >>>> >>>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00043.php >>>> >>>> >>>Good catch! I have backpatched these fixes to the 8.0 and 7.4 branches >>>as you suggested, (identical) patches attached. >>> >>>The big problem is that we might not make releases on these branches for >>>months, so anyone needing the fix should download CVS for those >>>branches. >>> >>> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >> >> >> > > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: