Thread: Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #1962: ECPG and VARCHAR
[moved to hackers] Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation? Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those it handled? I think "waiting for months" (i.e. for the next major bug fixes) is not the correct answer here. IMHO, the latest released version should be known best in all components. Best Regards, Michael Paesold Bruce Momjian wrote: > Michael Fuhr wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: >> > ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error, >> > but not if I do this: >> > >> > VARCHAR t[256]; >> > VARCHAR o[256]; >> > >> > ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way. >> >> This appears to be the guilty commit, which was made to 7.4, 8.0, >> and HEAD (8.1): >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-08/msg00266.php >> >> It was recently fixed in HEAD only: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00043.php > > Good catch! I have backpatched these fixes to the 8.0 and 7.4 branches > as you suggested, (identical) patches attached. > > The big problem is that we might not make releases on these branches for > months, so anyone needing the fix should download CVS for those > branches.
"Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes:
> Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past?
Yes. Relax. If this were a data-corruption-in-the-backend issue,
I might feel that it mandates an immediate re-release. But it isn't
and it doesn't. You'll note that Michael M. himself didn't bother to
backpatch the fix on first discovery ... so why should anyone else
take it more seriously?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at> writes: >> Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? > > Yes. Relax. If this were a data-corruption-in-the-backend issue, > I might feel that it mandates an immediate re-release. But it isn't > and it doesn't. You'll note that Michael M. himself didn't bother to > backpatch the fix on first discovery ... so why should anyone else > take it more seriously? OK. :-) Michael Paesold
Michael Paesold wrote: > [moved to hackers] > > Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new > release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation? > > Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those > it handled? I think "waiting for months" (i.e. for the next major bug fixes) > is not the correct answer here. IMHO, the latest released version should be > known best in all components. Yea, it is a regression, and yea, we hate when that happens. Let's see how many people have a problem with it and we can review if we need a minor release to fix it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Best Regards, > Michael Paesold > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Michael Fuhr wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > >> > ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error, > >> > but not if I do this: > >> > > >> > VARCHAR t[256]; > >> > VARCHAR o[256]; > >> > > >> > ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way. > >> > >> This appears to be the guilty commit, which was made to 7.4, 8.0, > >> and HEAD (8.1): > >> > >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-08/msg00266.php > >> > >> It was recently fixed in HEAD only: > >> > >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00043.php > > > > Good catch! I have backpatched these fixes to the 8.0 and 7.4 branches > > as you suggested, (identical) patches attached. > > > > The big problem is that we might not make releases on these branches for > > months, so anyone needing the fix should download CVS for those > > branches. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- 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
First, let me thank you for the effort you have been putting into the Postgresql development. It is a great system. It performs well and with the exception of a few little annoyances is a great competitor to Mysql or Oracle! This particular bug isn't a show stopper; I could have easily found a way around it if I wanted to. Instead I decided to fall back to 8.0.3 since this will be fixed hopefully in 8.0.5. But it did make me think of something else. I would like to make a suggestion, if you don't mind. I don't mind running the bleeding edge of things, and if you go to the gentoo bugs you will see quite a few posted by me. My suggestion - and it might be simply due to my not knowing where to look - is perhaps there should be a simple way to find the bugs that are still outstanding or when they resolved or how. On bugs.gentoo.org I can type in CUPS for example and find out everything - resolved, past and present and outstanding, bugs related to cups. I can find nothing on the postgresql site. FWIW, Chuck Wegrzyn Bruce Momjian wrote: >Michael Paesold wrote: > > >>[moved to hackers] >> >>Is this a regression in the stable branches? If so, shouldn't we do a new >>release rather immediately? What do others think about this situation? >> >>Can you remember regressions in stable branches in the past? How were those >>it handled? I think "waiting for months" (i.e. for the next major bug fixes) >>is not the correct answer here. IMHO, the latest released version should be >>known best in all components. >> >> > >Yea, it is a regression, and yea, we hate when that happens. Let's see >how many people have a problem with it and we can review if we need a >minor release to fix it. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>Best Regards, >>Michael Paesold >> >> >>Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> >>>Michael Fuhr wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error, >>>>>but not if I do this: >>>>> >>>>> VARCHAR t[256]; >>>>> VARCHAR o[256]; >>>>> >>>>>ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>This appears to be the guilty commit, which was made to 7.4, 8.0, >>>>and HEAD (8.1): >>>> >>>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-08/msg00266.php >>>> >>>>It was recently fixed in HEAD only: >>>> >>>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00043.php >>>> >>>> >>>Good catch! I have backpatched these fixes to the 8.0 and 7.4 branches >>>as you suggested, (identical) patches attached. >>> >>>The big problem is that we might not make releases on these branches for >>>months, so anyone needing the fix should download CVS for those >>>branches. >>> >>> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >> >> >> > > >
C Wegrzyn wrote: > First, let me thank you for the effort you have been putting into the > Postgresql development. It is a great system. It performs well and with > the exception of a few little annoyances is a great competitor to Mysql > or Oracle! > > This particular bug isn't a show stopper; I could have easily found a > way around it if I wanted to. Instead I decided to fall back to 8.0.3 > since this will be fixed hopefully in 8.0.5. But it did make me think > of something else. > > I would like to make a suggestion, if you don't mind. I don't mind > running the bleeding edge of things, and if you go to the gentoo bugs > you will see quite a few posted by me. My suggestion - and it might be > simply due to my not knowing where to look - is perhaps there should be > a simple way to find the bugs that are still outstanding or when they > resolved or how. On bugs.gentoo.org I can type in CUPS for example and > find out everything - resolved, past and present and outstanding, bugs > related to cups. I can find nothing on the postgresql site. Yea, that is a good idea. If you look at the release notes the fixes we usually do for minor releases are so small there is no need to report them before the minor release. This is kind of a rare case. Those bug dbs are great for tracking stuff, but getting stuff in there and keeping it managed is pretty hard. -- 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