Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
---
Tatsuo Ishii

Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:45:24 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
PostgreSQL 6.5.2
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?

Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:50:08 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
> 
> Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...

And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sun, 29 Aug 1999 16:39:29 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
>On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
>> > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
>> 
>> Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...
>
>And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)

Marc,

Could you make a tarball of 6.5.2-beta or 6.5.2-release-candidate or
whatever so that volunteers could get it by anon ftp for testing?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:02:59 +0900
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 

Try her out...just put up a release candidate now...

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:

> >On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> >> > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
> >> 
> >> Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...
> >
> >And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Could you make a tarball of 6.5.2-beta or 6.5.2-release-candidate or
> whatever so that volunteers could get it by anon ftp for testing?
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:03:09 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
> > 
> > Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...
> 
> And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)
> 

May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
at least to 6.5.2?

Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
 
-- 
Massimo Dal Zotto

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Massimo Dal Zotto               email: dz@cs.unitn.it               |
|  Via Marconi, 141                phone: ++39-0461534251              |
|  38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN)      www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/  |
|  Italy                             pgp: finger dz@tango.cs.unitn.it  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:42:37 +0200 (MEST)
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> at least to 6.5.2?
> Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.

I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:51:11 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > at least to 6.5.2?
> > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> 
> I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.

6.5.x is supposed to be *only* fixes, no new features...but I'm curious as
to why these never got into v6.5.0 in the first place...

Massimo?  

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:51:01 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
> Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > at least to 6.5.2?
> > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> 
> I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.

The QueryLimit has been reintroduced because it can be used to set a global
default limit for all queries instead of hacking manually some hundred
queries. I admit that the LIMIT...OFFSET is a cleaner way to do it, but
having the possibility to specify a global default doesn't hurt. The default
can always be overriden with an explicit LIMIT on a single query.
The patch uses the same mechanism of the LIMIT clause, so it's safe. It is
only a different way to set the limit value.

The FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY is a temporary fix to avoid huge memory growth in
some common situations, until the memory management is rewritten in a
better way. Being a little conditional code in a very few places of the
sources it can be safely applied and left disabled. Those few people who
need the feature, like me, can enable it at their own risk. I admit that
this is a kludge but the alternative is in some cases a machine with some
gigabyte of memory.

-- 
Massimo Dal Zotto

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Massimo Dal Zotto               email: dz@cs.unitn.it               |
|  Via Marconi, 141                phone: ++39-0461534251              |
|  38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN)      www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/  |
|  Italy                             pgp: finger dz@tango.cs.unitn.it  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:36:41 +0200 (MEST)
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > > at least to 6.5.2?
> > > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> > 
> > I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> > nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> > enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> > even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.
> 
> 6.5.x is supposed to be *only* fixes, no new features...but I'm curious as
> to why these never got into v6.5.0 in the first place...

Because they were submitted a few days before the realease date. Bruce told
me they would go in 6.5.1 but apparently he has forgot them. I hope to see
them in 6.5.2.

-- 
Massimo Dal Zotto

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Massimo Dal Zotto               email: dz@cs.unitn.it               |
|  Via Marconi, 141                phone: ++39-0461534251              |
|  38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN)      www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/  |
|  Italy                             pgp: finger dz@tango.cs.unitn.it  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:43:53 +0200 (MEST)
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
>> I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)

> The QueryLimit has been reintroduced because it can be used to set a global
> default limit for all queries instead of hacking manually some hundred
> queries. I admit that the LIMIT...OFFSET is a cleaner way to do it, but
> having the possibility to specify a global default doesn't hurt.

Yes it does: it creates the possibility of breaking (returning
incomplete answers to) queries inside rules, triggers, procedures, etc.
In the worst case it could be used by an unprivileged user to subvert
security checks built into a database by means of rules.

I think this "feature" is far too dangerous to put into the general
distribution.

What would be reasonably safe is a limit that applies *only* to data
being returned to the interactive user, but that would be a different
mechanism than the LIMIT clause; I'm not sure where it would need to
be implemented.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:52:50 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 
> >On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> >> > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
> >> 
> >> Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...
> >
> >And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)
> 
> Marc,
> 
> Could you make a tarball of 6.5.2-beta or 6.5.2-release-candidate or
> whatever so that volunteers could get it by anon ftp for testing?

I am now back, and have not yet branded the release as 6.5.2.  I can do
it tonight.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > > at least to 6.5.2?
> > > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> > 
> > I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> > nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> > enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> > even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.
> 
> 6.5.x is supposed to be *only* fixes, no new features...but I'm curious as
> to why these never got into v6.5.0 in the first place...
> 

I applied the safe ones, like the copy.c one.  People objected to most
of the others, for reasons I have forgotten.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> > > Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > > > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > > > at least to 6.5.2?
> > > > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> > > 
> > > I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> > > nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> > > enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> > > even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.
> > 
> > 6.5.x is supposed to be *only* fixes, no new features...but I'm curious as
> > to why these never got into v6.5.0 in the first place...
> 
> Because they were submitted a few days before the realease date. Bruce told
> me they would go in 6.5.1 but apparently he has forgot them. I hope to see
> them in 6.5.2.
> 

Oh, I did?  I forgot.  Let me try now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> > > Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > > > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > > > at least to 6.5.2?
> > > > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> > > 
> > > I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> > > nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> > > enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> > > even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.
> > 
> > 6.5.x is supposed to be *only* fixes, no new features...but I'm curious as
> > to why these never got into v6.5.0 in the first place...
> > 
> 
> I applied the safe ones, like the copy.c one.  People objected to most
> of the others, for reasons I have forgotten.

Most objections were beacause they were submitted just before the release
date of 6.5.0. Now three months have passed.
Which were the unsafe pathes? If an unsafe patch is one that can break
some essential piece of code I would classify them in the following way:

    array		safe, important bug fix to my contrib

    contrib		safe, changes to makefiles in my contrib

    copy-cancel-query	safe, it can't break anything unless you hit ^C

    emacs-vars		safe, only cosmetic changes required by emacs20

    free-tuple-mem	safe, it is under #ifdef and disabled by default.
			I won't recommend enabling it in a production
			environment, but it could be the solution of many
			headaches for some people, like my old sinval
			patch.

    psql-readline	safe, it just sets a readline documented variable

    set-variable	mostly safe, except the queryLimit stuff which can
			be removed if you don't trust it.
			The pg_options variable can be set only by the
			superuser.

If you don't like the queryLimit stuff I can send you a new patch for the
pg_options variable only.

-- 
Massimo Dal Zotto

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Massimo Dal Zotto               email: dz@cs.unitn.it               |
|  Via Marconi, 141                phone: ++39-0461534251              |
|  38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN)      www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/  |
|  Italy                             pgp: finger dz@tango.cs.unitn.it  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:27:06 +0200 (MEST)
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> > On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 
> > > Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > > > Are we going to release 6.5.2? If yes, then when?
> > > 
> > > Marc proposed Sept 1 (back on 8/15), and there were no objections...
> > 
> > And its still the date I'm planning around...So Wednesday this week :)
> > 
> 
> May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> at least to 6.5.2?
> 
> Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.

I have applied these to 6.6.  6.5.* is only major bug fixes, not even
minor fixes.

I applied the contrib, copy-cancel, emacs-vars(for trace.* only), psql
readline(already applied),  and set_variable (pg_options only,
query_limit was removed and I don't have agreement to re-add it.)

I skipped the tuple-freemem because someone complained it was a hack. 
Hopefully we can address it properly before 6.6.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> Most objections were beacause they were submitted just before the release
> date of 6.5.0. Now three months have passed.
> Which were the unsafe pathes? If an unsafe patch is one that can break
> some essential piece of code I would classify them in the following way:
> 
>     array		safe, important bug fix to my contrib

Applied.

> 
>     contrib		safe, changes to makefiles in my contrib

Applied.

> 
>     copy-cancel-query	safe, it can't break anything unless you hit ^C

Applied.

> 
>     emacs-vars		safe, only cosmetic changes required by emacs20

Applied.

> 
>     free-tuple-mem	safe, it is under #ifdef and disabled by default.
> 			I won't recommend enabling it in a production
> 			environment, but it could be the solution of many
> 			headaches for some people, like my old sinval
> 			patch.

We would rather not add this code.

> 
>     psql-readline	safe, it just sets a readline documented variable

Applied.

>     set-variable	mostly safe, except the queryLimit stuff which can
> 			be removed if you don't trust it.
> 			The pg_options variable can be set only by the
> 			superuser.

Applied, except query limit.

> 
> If you don't like the queryLimit stuff I can send you a new patch for the
> pg_options variable only.

Removed manually. Thanks.  I have been far behind in keeping up with
patches.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:41:08 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@wizard.net> writes:
> > May I ask that the patches I submitted two months ago for 6.5.0 are applied
> > at least to 6.5.2?
> > Here is the 6.5.1 version of my patches.
> 
> I don't much care for QueryLimit (we got rid of that for a reason!)
> nor for the FREE_TUPLE_MEMORY patch, but the rest of this looks safe
> enough... but are we in the business of adding features to 6.5.*,
> even little ones?  Maybe it should only go in current.

Applied to 6.6 only, without tuple memory or query limit fix.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:54:12 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> Removed manually. Thanks.  I have been far behind in keeping up with
> patches.

Looks like :)

    Well, actually running regression test emits alot of

        NOTICE:  Auto-creating query reference to table <table-name>

    from  inside  the  parser - which make most of the regression
    tests fail.  Not sure which of the  patches  introduced  them
    and  why.  Could  you please take a look at it? On the things
    I'm doing right  now  (adding  fields  +  indices  to  system
    catalogs and modifying code that's invoked during heap_open()
    or the like) I  feel  much  better  if  I  get  identical  (+
    correct) regression results before'n'after.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:10:12 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >
> > Removed manually. Thanks.  I have been far behind in keeping up with
> > patches.
> 
> Looks like :)
> 
>     Well, actually running regression test emits alot of
> 
>         NOTICE:  Auto-creating query reference to table <table-name>
> 
>     from  inside  the  parser - which make most of the regression
>     tests fail.  Not sure which of the  patches  introduced  them
>     and  why.  Could  you please take a look at it? On the things
>     I'm doing right  now  (adding  fields  +  indices  to  system
>     catalogs and modifying code that's invoked during heap_open()
>     or the like) I  feel  much  better  if  I  get  identical  (+
>     correct) regression results before'n'after.
> 

Thomas, can you re-generate the regression output so my new NOTICE is in
there?  I tried, but there are too many errno messages differences to
get just the new NOTICE stuff in there.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >
> > Removed manually. Thanks.  I have been far behind in keeping up with
> > patches.
> 
> Looks like :)
> 
>     Well, actually running regression test emits alot of
> 
>         NOTICE:  Auto-creating query reference to table <table-name>
> 
>     from  inside  the  parser - which make most of the regression
>     tests fail.  Not sure which of the  patches  introduced  them
>     and  why.  Could  you please take a look at it? On the things
>     I'm doing right  now  (adding  fields  +  indices  to  system
>     catalogs and modifying code that's invoked during heap_open()
>     or the like) I  feel  much  better  if  I  get  identical  (+
>     correct) regression results before'n'after.

I have backed this change out.  I will re-enable it when things are
quiet and the regression tests can be re-generated.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Removed manually. Thanks.  I have been far behind in keeping up with
> > > patches.
> >
> > Looks like :)
> >
> >     Well, actually running regression test emits alot of
> >
> >         NOTICE:  Auto-creating query reference to table <table-name>
> >
> >     from  inside  the  parser - which make most of the regression
> >     tests fail.  Not sure which of the  patches  introduced  them
> >     and  why.  Could  you please take a look at it? On the things
> >     I'm doing right  now  (adding  fields  +  indices  to  system
> >     catalogs and modifying code that's invoked during heap_open()
> >     or the like) I  feel  much  better  if  I  get  identical  (+
> >     correct) regression results before'n'after.
>
> I have backed this change out.  I will re-enable it when things are
> quiet and the regression tests can be re-generated.


[pgsql@hot] ~/devel/src/test/regress > ./checkresults
======   int2   ======
10c10
< ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "100000": Numerical result out of range
---
> ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "100000": Math result not representable
======   int4   ======
10c10
< ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "1000000000000": Numerical result out of range
---
> ERROR:  pg_atoi: error reading "1000000000000": Math result not representable
[pgsql@hot] ~/devel/src/test/regress >



    Such a regression result while we're in the middle of feature
    development.

    I'm really impressed - if we only can keep it on this  level!


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:16:18 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2