This is because (-1) << 32 is -1 (Only intel arc. has been checked)

Oleg Sharoiko

libpq++.

Patrick Welche

last batch, I think...

fixing it more..

bring it all into -current again

try and fix things...

bring in missing files ... this isn't very clean, but :(

INSERT ... DEFAULT VALUES statement does indeed have a null targetlist,
at least during parse and rewrite stages.

treat a NULL condition result as FALSE.  Clean up some bogus comments
here and there, too.

error message wording, due to most cases of no-such-relation now being
detected in central heap_open code rather than on an ad-hoc basis.

additional argument specifying the kind of lock to acquire/release (or
'NoLock' to do no lock processing).  Ensure that all relations are locked
with some appropriate lock level before being examined --- this ensures
that relevant shared-inval messages have been processed and should prevent
problems caused by concurrent VACUUM.  Fix several bugs having to do with
mismatched increment/decrement of relation ref count and mismatched
heap_open/close (which amounts to the same thing).  A bogus ref count on
a relation doesn't matter much *unless* a SI Inval message happens to
arrive at the wrong time, which is probably why we got away with this
sloppiness for so long.  Repair missing grab of AccessExclusiveLock in
DROP TABLE, ALTER/RENAME TABLE, etc, as noted by Hiroshi.
Recommend 'make clean all' after pulling this update; I modified the
Relation struct layout slightly.
Will post further discussion to pghackers list shortly.

See attached mail for more details.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim@krs.ru>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
References: <000201befa94$42fe04c0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp>
Subject: Re: elog(ERROR) in vacuum
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:27:10 +0900
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
Message-ID: <37D85E6E.5AFA126D@krs.ru>

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> Hello Vadim,
>
> I have a question about vacuum.
>
> VACUUM has a phase like commit which calls TransactionIdCommit().
> But if elog(ERROR) occured after that,the status of transaction is
> changed from XID_COMMIT to XID_ABORT.
>
> Seems to me this causes inconsistency.
> Shoudn't AbortTransaction() be changed not to call TransacionIdAbort()
> in case of vacuum.

You're right!
As usual -:)

Vadim

into it.