Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did we decide against LAZY?
I thought the core consensus was that it was too risky to install
post-beta. On the other hand, we're installing some other pretty
major fixes. Do we want to re-open that discussion?
regards, tom lane
Did we decide against LAZY? Seems we have a number of people concerned
about vacuum downtime, and I can see this as a win for them. If they
don't specify LAZY, the code is not run.
The Hermit Hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
should be easily testable though, no?
What makes you think
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did we decide against LAZY?
I thought the core consensus was that it was too risky to install
post-beta. On the other hand, we're installing some other pretty
major fixes. Do we want to re-open that discussion?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Did we decide against LAZY? Seems we have a number of people concerned
about vacuum downtime, and I can see this as a win for them. If they
don't specify LAZY, the code is not run.
I see a number of possibilities:
1.) A tested 'feature patch' available for
Did we decide against LAZY? Seems we have a number of people
concerned about vacuum downtime, and I can see this as a win
for them. If they don't specify LAZY, the code is not run.
First sorry that I wasn't able to deal with vlazy earlier.
Now I have one more open item for 7.1 - restoring
Sounds good to me. [Of course, I never met a patch I didn't like, or so
they say.]
I know you guys are pretty busy with the upcoming release but I
was hoping for more interest in this work.
With this (which needs forward porting) we're able to cut
vacuum time down from ~10minutes to
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically Vadim left it up to me to campaign for acceptance of this
work and he said he wouldn't have a problem bringing it in as long
as it was ok with the rest of the development team.
So can we get a go-ahead on this? :)
If Vadim isn't
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically Vadim left it up to me to campaign for acceptance of this
work and he said he wouldn't have a problem bringing it in as long
as it was ok with the rest of the development team.
So can we get a go-ahead on this? :)
If Vadim isn't
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically Vadim left it up to me to campaign for acceptance of this
work and he said he wouldn't have a problem bringing it in as long
as it was ok with the rest of the development team.
So can we get a
* The Hermit Hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 14:27] wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Basically Vadim left it up to me to campaign for acceptance of this
work and he said he wouldn't have a problem bringing it in as long
If Vadim isn't sufficiently confident of it to commit it
on his own authority, I'm inclined to leave it out of 7.1.
My concern is mostly schedule. We are well into beta cycle
now and this seems like way too critical (not to say high-risk)
a feature to be adding after start of
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
If Vadim isn't sufficiently confident of it to commit it
on his own authority, I'm inclined to leave it out of 7.1.
My concern is mostly schedule. We are well into beta cycle
now and this seems like way too critical (not to say
If there are no objections then I'm ready to add changes to 7.1.
Else, I'll produce patches for 7.1 just after release and incorporate
changes into 7.2.
Comments?
IMHO, we are in beta now and this doesn't fix a bug ... if we could make
this available as a patch in /contrib until
Go for it Vadim ... it is only a couple of days in, and I know there are
several places I could personally use it ...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If there are no objections then I'm ready to add changes to 7.1.
Else, I'll produce patches for 7.1 just after release and
Thanks. The other good item is that is already being used in production
use, so it seems it is pretty well tested.
Go for it Vadim ... it is only a couple of days in, and I know there are
several places I could personally use it ...
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there are no objections then I'm ready to add changes to 7.1.
Else, I'll produce patches for 7.1 just after release and incorporate
changes into 7.2.
I'd vote for the second choice. I do not think we
A few points in favor of including this ... first, when Vadim does do the
storage manager rewrite for v7.2, the patch is essentially useless ... and
second, its currently being used in production on a server that is/will
tax it heavily, so it isn't untested ...
I'd almost extend that to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there are no objections then I'm ready to add changes to 7.1.
Else, I'll produce patches for 7.1 just after release and incorporate
changes into 7.2.
I'd vote for the second choice. I do not think we
I'd vote for the second choice. I do not think we should be adding new
features now. Also, I don't know about you, but I have enough bug fix,
testing, and documentation work to keep me busy till January even
without any new features...
It'd be really naughty to add it to the beta at
The Hermit Hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
should be easily testable though, no?
What makes you think that?
worst case, we pull it out afterwards ...
No, worst case is that we release a seriously broken 7.1, and don't
find out till afterwards.
There are plenty of new features on my to-do
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
The Hermit Hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
should be easily testable though, no?
What makes you think that?
Alfred could volunteer to move to v7.1? *grin*
* Andrew Snow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 20:21] wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
"Mikheev, Vadim" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there are no objections then I'm ready to add changes to 7.1.
Else, I'll produce patches for 7.1 just after release and incorporate
changes into
22 matches
Mail list logo
