Hello.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 09:15:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 04:55 2001-04-13, John Dean wrote:
> >At 21:17 12/04/2001 -0400, Jocelyn Bernier wrote:
> >>
> >>I am currently running MySQL 3.23.35 on Windows NT 4.0 SP6. I checked the
> >>mailing list regularly and didn't see any
At 04:55 2001-04-13, John Dean wrote:
>Hi
>At 21:17 12/04/2001 -0400, Jocelyn Bernier wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>I am currently running MySQL 3.23.35 on Windows NT 4.0 SP6. I checked the
>>mailing list regularly and didn't see any complaint or bug report
>>regarding version 3.23.37. In fact I
Hi
At 21:17 12/04/2001 -0400, Jocelyn Bernier wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>I am currently running MySQL 3.23.35 on Windows NT 4.0 SP6. I checked the
>mailing list regularly and didn't see any complaint or bug report
>regarding version 3.23.37. In fact I would like to know what is the most
>stable
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:19:59PM -0500, Jocelyn Bernier wrote:
> At 22:32 2001-03-23, G r e g L a w r i e wrote:
> >Hmmm, I am not sure whether there are issues with this particular version of
> >MySQL or not, but I would start looking at NT and the various bits and
> >pieces that it inst
At 22:32 2001-03-23, G r e g L a w r i e wrote:
>Hmmm, I am not sure whether there are issues with this particular version of
>MySQL or not, but I would start looking at NT and the various bits and
>pieces that it installs for memory leaks rather than MySQL.
>
>I have an NT server (same versions
Hmmm, I am not sure whether there are issues with this particular version of
MySQL or not, but I would start looking at NT and the various bits and
pieces that it installs for memory leaks rather than MySQL.
I have an NT server (same versions as yours) that I am not running MySQL on
and it does t
