Re: logical changeset generation v6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: logical changeset generation v6
Date
Msg-id 20130917143110.GK5452@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical changeset generation v6  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: logical changeset generation v6
Re: logical changeset generation v6
Re: logical changeset generation v6
List pgsql-hackers
On 2013-09-17 09:45:28 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/15/13 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-09-15 11:20:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 22:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >>> Attached you can find the newest version of the logical changeset
> >>> generation patchset.
> >>
> >> You probably have bigger things to worry about, but please check the
> >> results of cpluspluscheck, because some of the header files don't
> >> include header files they depend on.
> >
> > Hm. I tried to get that right, but it's been a while since I last
> > checked. I don't regularly use cpluspluscheck because it doesn't work in
> > VPATH builds... We really need to fix that.
> >
> > I'll push a fix for that to the git tree, don't think that's worth a
> > resend in itself.
>
> This patch set now fails to apply because of the commit "Rename various
> "freeze multixact" variables".

And I am even partially guilty for that patch...

Rebased patches attached.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
 Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Extend namespace of valid guc names
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Is it necessary to rewrite table while increasing the scale of datatype numeric?