Thread: 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@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marc > G. Fournier > Sent: 24 March 2005 16:35 > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: [HACKERS] 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? Not me, but bear in mind it's the Easter holidays, so I for one cannot guarantee I'll be able to package a windows installer for at least a few days. Regards, Dave.
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@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
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Page wrote: > Not me, but bear in mind it's the Easter holidays, so I for one cannot > guarantee I'll be able to package a windows installer for at least a few > days. That's okay, we're only packaging a beta this weekend ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Page wrote:
>> Not me, but bear in mind it's the Easter holidays, so I for one cannot
>> guarantee I'll be able to package a windows installer for at least a few
>> days.
> That's okay, we're only packaging a beta this weekend ...
Still, we definitely want to get in some Windows beta testing, so a
reasonable period will have to be allowed *after* a Windows package
is available.
I hadn't been thinking about the fact that this weekend is Easter ---
that's undoubtedly going to reduce the number of people with time
available for testing. I still think we should plan on wrapping
8.0.2beta tomorrow evening, but we'll probably have to allow more
than a week for testing.
regards, tom lane
> 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? I have three pending kerberos patches, two of which are plain bugfixes and one which I'd argue is a bugfix around a can't-compile issue, that I'd very much like to see in 8.0.2. The bugfixes are general (both bit me rather badly on linux while testing before I got into the win32 part of the testing), the compile fix is win32 specific. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00148.php (bugfix) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00150.php (compile fix) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00181.php (bugfix) //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > 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? > > I have three pending kerberos patches, two of which are plain bugfixes > and one which I'd argue is a bugfix around a can't-compile issue, that > I'd very much like to see in 8.0.2. The bugfixes are general (both bit > me rather badly on linux while testing before I got into the win32 part > of the testing), the compile fix is win32 specific. > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00148.php > (bugfix) > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00150.php > (compile fix) > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00181.php > (bugfix) I have all of them in the patches queue now. -- 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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org] > Sent: 24 March 2005 18:37 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Upcoming 8.0.2 Release > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Page wrote: > > > Not me, but bear in mind it's the Easter holidays, so I for > one cannot > > guarantee I'll be able to package a windows installer for > at least a few > > days. > > That's okay, we're only packaging a beta this weekend ... Yeah, but on one platform that spring instantly to mind, most of the potential testers will be wanting a precompiled binary. Anyway, it's your call - whatever -core is happy with. /D
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> I have three pending kerberos patches, two of which are plain bugfixes
> and one which I'd argue is a bugfix around a can't-compile issue, that
> I'd very much like to see in 8.0.2.
Working on these. Don't you have the test backwards here?
***************
*** 436,442 ****
krb5_free_principal(pg_krb5_context, server);
! if (fcntl(sock, F_SETFL, (long) flags)) { char sebuf[256];
--- 434,440 ----
krb5_free_principal(pg_krb5_context, server);
! if (set_noblock(sock)) { char sebuf[256];
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Page wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org] >> Sent: 24 March 2005 18:37 >> To: Dave Page >> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org >> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Upcoming 8.0.2 Release >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Page wrote: >> >>> Not me, but bear in mind it's the Easter holidays, so I for >> one cannot >>> guarantee I'll be able to package a windows installer for >> at least a few >>> days. >> >> That's okay, we're only packaging a beta this weekend ... > > Yeah, but on one platform that spring instantly to mind, most of the > potential testers will be wanting a precompiled binary. > > Anyway, it's your call - whatever -core is happy with. How quickly can you get a precompiled binary in place? Would delaying release until April 7th be enough time for Windows testing? Still going to wrap a beta up tomorrow, so that we can get some testing started ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-03/msg00176.php Add it to 8.0.2 or 8.1? Karel -- Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.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@zf.jcu.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@zf.jcu.cz>
-----Original Message----- From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org] Sent: Fri 3/25/2005 1:14 AM To: Dave Page Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Upcoming 8.0.2 Release > How quickly can you get a precompiled binary in place? Would delaying > release until April 7th be enough time for Windows testing? Still going > to wrap a beta up tomorrow, so that we can get some testing started ... I honestly can't say - I've got all sorts of family stuff going on so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get some time. I'm back in the office on Tuesday though, so will be able to work then at the latest. Regards, Dave
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.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@zf.jcu.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@zf.jcu.cz>
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.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
>> I have three pending kerberos patches, two of which are >plain bugfixes >> and one which I'd argue is a bugfix around a can't-compile >issue, that >> I'd very much like to see in 8.0.2. > >Working on these. Don't you have the test backwards here? (Sorry, been offline for a couple of days) Certainly seems that way. And looking closely, the code I'm actually *running* here doesn't look that way. Must've messed it up while cleaning up the patch. Thanks! I can also confirm that a properly configured 8.0.2beta1 libpq will work in my scenario to use kerberos login to a 8.0.1 running on linux. I'll test with 8.0.2 on the server side as well, but I won't be able to do that until tuesday or wednesday. //Magnus