> We don't want a pg_dump flag; the doc mention is good enough.
>
>
>Doh! Try this one instead. Postgres 8.3 changed the name of the
> flag mentioned in the doc.
[ Please avoid html-only email.]
OK, patch applied, but I removed the mention of pre-8.3 because this is
going only in the 8.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Apologies. Turns out the name of the relevant setting was changed
for 8.3! So a revised patch is attached.
For backing, see:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release-8-3.html
" Numerous changes in administrative server parameters...
stats_bl
>Apologies. Turns out the name of the relevant setting was changed
> for 8.3! So a revised patch is attached.
>For backing, see:
>http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release-8-3.html
>" Numerous changes in administrative server parameters...
>stats_block_level and stats_r
Apologies. Turns out the name of the relevant setting was changed for
8.3! So a revised patch is attached.
For backing, see:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/release-8-3.html
" Numerous changes in administrative server parameters...
stats_block_level and stats_row_level are merged in
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> > Bryce Nesbitt escreveu:
> >> Here's a revision (thanks Robert Treat for the spelling corrextion).
> >> If there are no other objections, how do I nominate it for consideration?
> >>
> > Added to next commit fest [1].
>
> Um, not necessary.
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> This is a proposed patch to document disabling the statistics collector
> pg_dump activity, and give a bit more visibility to the PGOPTIONS
> environment variable supported by libpq.
>
> It is an alternative to the prior patch, which supplied a --no-stats flag.
>
> This i
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Bryce Nesbitt escreveu:
Here's a revision (thanks Robert Treat for the spelling corrextion).
If there are no other objections, how do I nominate it for consideration?
Added to next commit fest [1].
Um, not necessary. We're still accepting new doc patches, an
Bryce Nesbitt escreveu:
> Here's a revision (thanks Robert Treat for the spelling corrextion).
> If there are no other objections, how do I nominate it for consideration?
>
Added to next commit fest [1].
[1] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2009-First
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Here's a revision (thanks Robert Treat for the spelling corrextion).
If there are no other objections, how do I nominate it for consideration?
-Bryce
You already have.
Mind you, in the future when you're not continuing a discussion from a
code patch, you
Here's a revision (thanks Robert Treat for the spelling corrextion).
If there are no other objections, how do I nominate it for consideration?
-Bryce
Index: pg_dump.sgml
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/
Robert Treat wrote:
> also, I forget which way is proper, but you're inconsistent with your closing
> tags for in that paragraph (using both )
They're both acceptable.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 20:22:10 Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> This is a proposed patch to document disabling the statistics collector
> pg_dump activity, and give a bit more visibility to the PGOPTIONS
> environment variable supported by libpq.
>
> It is an alternative to the prior patch, which suppli
This is a proposed patch to document disabling the statistics collector
pg_dump activity, and give a bit more visibility to the PGOPTIONS
environment variable supported by libpq.
It is an alternative to the prior patch, which supplied a --no-stats flag.
This is a documentation only patch, not
13 matches
Mail list logo
