On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think we need to apply something like the attached.
>>>
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>>> think we need to apply something like the attached.
>>
>> The protocol supports different write/fsync values, so the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>>> think we need to apply something like the attached.
>>
>> The protocol supports different write/fsync values, so the
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> The protocol supports sending two values, so two are displayed.
>>>
>>> If you wish to remove one from the display then that only m
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> The protocol supports sending two values, so two are displayed.
>>
>> If you wish to remove one from the display then that only makes sense
>> if you also prevent the protocol from support
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The protocol supports sending two values, so two are displayed.
>
> If you wish to remove one from the display then that only makes sense
> if you also prevent the protocol from supporting two values.
>
> There is no benefit in doing that, so w
On 3/24/11 8:16 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry
>>> around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no
>>> objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're
>>> go
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> +1 for either dropping it or making it work.
That's my feeling also. There is *no* reason that we can't add a column
to the status view later, and every probability that we will find
reasons other than this to do so. So if the column isn't going to
provide useful info
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry
>> around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no
>> objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're
>> going to have it, we should make it work
> What a s
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce
>> the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from
>> now, since we know we will need that info la
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> In any case, that's not the only argument for keeping it. We introduce
> the view in this release and I would like it to stay the same from
> now, since we know we will need that info later.
At least as I understand it, it's not our project po
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
think we need to apply something like the attached.
>>>
>>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I
>> think we need to apply something like the attached.
>
> The protocol supports different write/fsync values, so the view should
> display them.
That's exactly the point. Cu
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I agree to get rid of write_location.
>>>
>>> No, don't remove it.
>>>
>>> We seem to be just looking for things to tweak without
15 matches
Mail list logo
