Can I have the updated version of this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Ah doh - I thought it was catching it returning a boolean. I'll fix and
> resubmit.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Conway" <mail@joeconway.com>
> To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
> Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_stat_reset() weirdness
>
>
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > If you apply the pg_stat_reset() function patch you get this regression
> > > failure. Is this because it's returning a bool I guess? Shall I just
> fix
> > > the regression test to exclude this function?
> >
> >
> > > AND p1.proname != 'update_pg_pwd_and_pg_group';
> > > oid | proname
> > > ! ------+---------------
> > > ! 2249 | pg_stat_reset
> > > ! (1 row)
> >
> > Likely because this is now in CVS:
> >
> > DATA(insert OID = 2249 ( record PGNSP PGUID 4 t p t \054 0 0
> > oidin oidout i p f 0 -1 0 _null_ _null_ ));
> > #define RECORDOID 2249
> >
> > The Oids conflict.
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
