On Sunday 22 November 2009 23:11:27 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 November 2009 18:23:36 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I personally believe this
> >> would be a serious mistake, unless it is replaced with an alternate
> >> mec
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 22 November 2009 18:23:36 Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, I personally believe this
>> would be a serious mistake, unless it is replaced with an alternate
>> mechanism for accomplishing the same ends. Without Pool and Storage
>>
Hello,
This is a project that I (and we) have wanted and planned for quite some time,
and in fact, it is now an "official" project being actively worked on by
Marco and will shortly be documented on our development blog.
Due to scheduling, this feature will not make it into the 3.2.0 release (d
Item ?: Shared object for catalog
Date: 21 November 2009
Origin: Christian Wittmer. ch...@computersalat.de
Status: New request
What: Provide shared object for catalog when building with
different SQL engines.
Why:You can build --with-postgresql --with-sqlite --with-mysql at
On Friday 20 November 2009 14:44:54 Martin Simmons wrote:
> It there a technical reason why the NextPool directive is part of the pool
> at all?
It was not really a technical reason, but David Boyes suggested doing it that
way, possibly because that is how TSM does it. At the time, I wasn't re
Thanks for the new thread ( I will do not more hickjack in future, I'll promise
:-)
Dan Langille wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>> This was originally posted under PostgreSQL createdb changes
>>
>> Bruno Friedmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan
>>>
>>> Can you check for constency with the other databases (M
