On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:18:27AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> use 7.3beta1 has had). On the third hand, the patch only does something
> if mktime() has already failed, so it's hard to see how it could make
> life worse even if it's buggy.
On those grounds alone, it seems worth putting in. As you
Nothing against including it from me ...
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:30:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
> >> have it in beta3. If it
Tom Lane wrote:
> Any votes on whether to fix that or leave it alone in 7.2.3? I need
> some input in the next few hours ...
Including it sounds like a good idea.
'Yes' from me.
:)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing I am undecided about: I am more than half tempted to put in
> the fix that makes us able to cope with mktime's broken-before-1970
> behavior in recent glibc versions (e.g., Red Hat 7.3). This seems like
> a good idea considering that other Linux distros will surely be
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:30:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
> >> have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
> >> beta3 release not
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:30:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
>> have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
>> beta3 release notes.
> If there won't be a
Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
> > have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
> > beta3 release notes.
>
> We definitely should have a 7.2.3. If we can release a 7.2.2 to fix
> bugs
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
> have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
> beta3 release notes.
We definitely should have a 7.2.3. If we can release a 7.2.2 to fix
bugs and a security flaw, then we should
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:30:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
> have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
> beta3 release notes.
If there won't be any 7.2.3, could a note be put up on the website
OK, we need a decision on whether we are going to do a 7.2,3 or just
have it in beta3. If it is in 7.2.3, I would not mention it in the
beta3 release notes.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yesterday I reported a WAL problem that cou
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yesterday I reported a WAL problem that could lead to tuples not being
> marked as committed-good or committed-dead after we'd already removed
> the pg_clog segment that had their transaction's commit status.
> I wasn't completely satisfied with that, though, because on further
>
Yesterday I reported a WAL problem that could lead to tuples not being
marked as committed-good or committed-dead after we'd already removed
the pg_clog segment that had their transaction's commit status.
I wasn't completely satisfied with that, though, because on further
reflection it seemed a ve
12 matches
Mail list logo
