Re: Upcoming 8.0.2 Release

Now that Tom has gotten the ARC->2Q changes into the 8.0.x Branch, and
Josh has had some time to do some preliminary performance testing on it,
we need to put out 8.0.2 ...

Core's hope is to wrap a beta up on Friday (tomorrow), and baring any bugs
found in it, do a full release next Thursday.

The reason for the gap is to give a bit of extra testing time due to the
ARC->2Q changes ...

Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:35:14PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?

Has anybody had a chance to review the PL/Python patch I submitted?
I did the diff against HEAD but I think its PL/Python code is
identical to REL8_0_STABLE. If the patch is acceptable then PL/Python
users connecting to PostgreSQL via Windows clients should benefit
from it being in 8.0.2.

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:35:14PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone sitting on anything that they feel needs/should get into 8.0.2?
>
> Has anybody had a chance to review the PL/Python patch I submitted?
> I did the diff against HEAD but I think its PL/Python code is
> identical to REL8_0_STABLE. If the patch is acceptable then PL/Python
> users connecting to PostgreSQL via Windows clients should benefit
> from it being in 8.0.2.

I will look at it today.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php

Add it to 8.0.2 or 8.1?

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>

Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php

I intend to look at that tomorrow. Meanwhile, have you got a fix
for bug#1500?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

regards, tom lane

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php
>
> I intend to look at that tomorrow. Meanwhile, have you got a fix
> for bug#1500?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>

Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I intend to look at that tomorrow. Meanwhile, have you got a fix
>> for bug#1500?
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php

> Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(

I looked at this and found the problem is that dch_date() isn't
defending itself against the possibility that tm->tm_mon is zero,
as it well might be for an interval. What do you think about
just adding

case DCH_MONTH:
+ if (!tm->tm_mon)
+ return 0;
strcpy(workbuff, months_full[tm->tm_mon - 1]);
sprintf(inout, "%*s", S_FM(suf) ? 0 : -9, str_toupper(workbuff));
if (S_FM(suf))
return strlen(p_inout) - 1;
else
return 8;

and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?
This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
which is probably as good as we can do.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I intend to look at that tomorrow. Meanwhile, have you got a fix
> >> for bug#1500?
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-02/msg00226.php
>
> > Sorry. Not yet. I haven't time today. Maybe next week :-(
>
> I looked at this and found the problem is that dch_date() isn't
> defending itself against the possibility that tm->tm_mon is zero,
> as it well might be for an interval. What do you think about
> just adding
>
> case DCH_MONTH:
> + if (!tm->tm_mon)
> + return 0;

> and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?

Yes, I think you're right. It's because original code was for non-
interval 'tm' struct where is no problem with zeros.

> This would case "MON" to convert to a null string for intervals,
> which is probably as good as we can do.

Yes. The final solution will be remove all to_char(interval) stuff in
8.1.

Thanks Tom,

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>

Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
>> What do you think about just adding
>>
>> case DCH_MONTH:
>> + if (!tm->tm_mon)
>> + return 0;

>> and similarly in each of the other case arms that use tm_mon?

> Yes, I think you're right. It's because original code was for non-
> interval 'tm' struct where is no problem with zeros.

OK, patch applied. (I had it wrong above, correct return value is -1.)

regards, tom lane