Please split the patch into one part for backporting and one part for
master-only and post both patches, clearly indicating which is which.
Attached are the full patch for head and the backport part (the patch name
ends with "backport") separated.
That's not really what I wanted; the full p
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> Ok, I added a reference to the commitfest entry from this wiki page, and
>>> a
>>> note about partial 9.5 backporting.
>>
>> Please split the patch into one part for backporting and one part for
>> master-only and post both patches, clearly
Ok, I added a reference to the commitfest entry from this wiki page, and a
note about partial 9.5 backporting.
Please split the patch into one part for backporting and one part for
master-only and post both patches, clearly indicating which is which.
Attached are the full patch for head and
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> Thanks for the pointer. However, I do not have "editor priviledge" on
>>> this
>>> wiki, maybe Tomas has?
>>
>> I gave you editor privs now, but since it's in 9.5 I guess it needs to
>> be on the bug tracker (Except, of course, we don't hav
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >>I've created an entry in the next commit fest so that it is not lost, but I
> >>hope it will be committed before then.
> >
> >If this problem was introduced by commits in 9.6, this issue should be
> >listed in the open items page,
> >https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open
Thanks for the pointer. However, I do not have "editor priviledge" on this
wiki, maybe Tomas has?
I gave you editor privs now, but since it's in 9.5 I guess it needs to
be on the bug tracker (Except, of course, we don't have one.)
Ok, I added a reference to the commitfest entry from this wi
I've created an entry in the next commit fest so that it is not lost, but I
hope it will be committed before then.
If this problem was introduced by commits in 9.6, this issue should be
listed in the open items page,
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items
Thanks for the pointer. However
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> I've created an entry in the next commit fest so that it is not lost, but I
> hope it will be committed before then.
If this problem was introduced by commits in 9.6, this issue should be
listed in the open items page,
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items
--
Álva
I've created an entry in the next commit fest so that it is not lost, but
I hope it will be committed before then.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hi,
On 03/19/2016 08:29 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
...
Here is an updated version of your proposal:
- use instead of "
- use script_no and mention -b as well
- spell out skipped explanation after the sample output
Seems fine to me.
Also, while reading the doc, I really think that the
Hello Tomas,
while learning about format of the transaction log produced by pgbench, I've
noticed this sentence in the section describing format of the per-transaction
log:
The last field skipped_transactions reports the number of
transactions skipped because they were too far behind sch
Hi,
while learning about format of the transaction log produced by pgbench,
I've noticed this sentence in the section describing format of the
per-transaction log:
The last field skipped_transactions reports the number of
transactions skipped because they were too far behind schedule.
12 matches
Mail list logo
