Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
It seems a reasonably safe change, but I
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
Should we?
Yes.
I concur. The problems of a too-low fsm setting are
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
Should we?
Yes.
I concur. The problems of
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
It seems a reasonably safe change, but I
Kevin Brown wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
It seems a
Bruce Momjian writes:
Note: If you are upgrading an existing system and are going to
install the new files over the old ones, then you should have
backed up your data and shut down the old server by now, as
explained in the Section called If You Are
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the list of things to do when we release to make sure things like
the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
has been done?
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:18, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the list of things to do when we release to make sure things like
the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
has been done?
No, we don't do that
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the list of things to do when we release to make sure things like
the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the list of things to do when we release to make sure things like
the
On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site
(freshmeat, slashdot, etc...)
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Tarball looks good from here.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Tarball looks good from here.
Great, put out a short techy announcement this evening
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... Hi, we fixed some
bugs? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists,
you
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... Hi, we fixed some
bugs? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... Hi, we fixed some
bugs? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 08:53, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
To: Robert Treat
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002
Marc G. Fournier writes:
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Plenty...
The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one
factual mistake that needs to be fixed. The HISTORY file
Bruce Momjian writes:
A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
a new major version number for this release, which may require
recompilation of client code in certain cases.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it?
Just curious as to
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
a new major
Bruce Momjian writes:
I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
will not be required.
That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
dump/restore will not be required. ;-)
Bruce Momjian writes:
How do you do that? Do you manually reformat the whole file after you
generate it, or do you just cut-paste the new release info into
/HISTORY so the old manual formatting remains? It did line break badly.
I put in the changes I had in mind and reformatted it, so as
Marc G. Fournier writes:
Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a
rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my
only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning
instead of this evening, just want to make sure that
'K, I'm going to remove the tar files ... Bruce, can you go through these
and get them fixed up?
Peter, I have to take part of the blame away from Tom ... I'm on the road
tomrorow afternoon to Ontario, and won't be back online until *late* Fri,
so we kinda rushed it all ...
Tom, we tried ...
At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything?
Seeing the setting for MAX_FSM_RELATIONS bumped to 1000 would be good
(patch already sent)
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. Should we?
---
Philip Warner wrote:
At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
the next
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
Should we?
Yes.
Philip Warner|
31 matches
Mail list logo
