On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 01:18:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
> > I used plenty of images I pulled off the net without regard for
> > copyright so I hesitated to put it up. I suppose that's par for the
> > course with these kinds of presentations. In any case it was just a
> > qui
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> VAX (simh):
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PG-bMU4WiS1pjtBwRvH4cE-nN9y5gj8ZLCO7KMrlvYg/view
>
>> Fuzzer:
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12Dd9Bhcugkdi2w0ye4T1fy9ccjconJEz9cNthdeyH7k/view
>
> Very cool, thanks!
Incidentally,
Greg Stark writes:
> I used plenty of images I pulled off the net without regard for
> copyright so I hesitated to put it up. I suppose that's par for the
> course with these kinds of presentations. In any case it was just a
> quick lightning talk I threw together to describe a few days of mostly
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Arg, actually it is not:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Conference_Europe_Talks_2015
> Greg could you add it there?
No, apparently that page is restricted to only some users.
I used plenty of images I pulled off the net with
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Greg's lightning talk in Vienna about how he got the emulator working
>>> was priceless. I know he posted the VAX results, but how he got them
>>> was amazing.
>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Greg's lightning talk in Vienna about how he got the emulator working
>> was priceless. I know he posted the VAX results, but how he got them
>> was amazing.
> +1. The work of a pure hacker.
Is this available onl
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 01:16:09AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> >
>> > In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's
>> > harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 01:16:09AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> >
> > In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's
> > harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it seems risky:
> > conversion of NaN to an integer isn't well
Greg Stark writes:
> On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's
>> harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it seems risky:
>> conversion of NaN to an integer isn't well defined.
> Am I going to have to fire up the emul
On 1 Dec 2015 19:48, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>
> In passing, avoid possible calculation of log10(0). Probably that's
> harmless, given the lack of field complaints, but it seems risky:
> conversion of NaN to an integer isn't well defined.
Am I going to have to fire up the emulator again?
10 matches
Mail list logo
