Josh Berkus wrote:
On 6/14/10 3:39 PM, Lacey Powers wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lacey Powers wrote:
I tried to send something out Thursday about this to
pgsql-performance, and I tried to send something out last night about
this to pgsql-announce. Neither seem to have gotten through, or
approve
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Lacey Powers wrote:
Do any of the other minor releases made at the same time have this
problem, or just 8.4.4?
The only ones affected were 8.4.4 for CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386.
That also covers RHEL5 x86_64/i386, no? I assume you use the same RPMs
for both.
cheers
Lacey Powers wrote:
Do any of the other minor releases made at the same time have this
problem, or just 8.4.4?
The only ones affected were 8.4.4 for CentOS 5 x86_64 and i386.
That also covers RHEL5 x86_64/i386, no? I assume you use the same RPMs
for both.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via p
On 6/14/10 3:39 PM, Lacey Powers wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Lacey Powers wrote:
>>> I tried to send something out Thursday about this to
>>> pgsql-performance, and I tried to send something out last night about
>>> this to pgsql-announce. Neither seem to have gotten through, or
>>> approved.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lacey Powers wrote:
I tried to send something out Thursday about this to pgsql-performance,
and I tried to send something out last night about this to
pgsql-announce. Neither seem to have gotten through, or approved. =( =( =(
Yes, I suspected that might have happened.
T
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > OK, how do we properly get rid of all those buggy 8.4.4 installs? Seems
> > a posting to announce is not enough, and we need to show users how to
> > tell if they are running a de-buggy version.
>
> The original thread already covered that in sufficien
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, how do we properly get rid of all those buggy 8.4.4 installs? Seems
> a posting to announce is not enough, and we need to show users how to
> tell if they are running a de-buggy version.
The original thread already covered that in sufficient detail: check
debug_assert
Lacey Powers wrote:
> I tried to send something out Thursday about this to pgsql-performance,
> and I tried to send something out last night about this to
> pgsql-announce. Neither seem to have gotten through, or approved. =( =( =(
Yes, I suspected that might have happened.
> Thursday to the Pe
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue jun 10 11:46:25 -0400 2010:
Yes, the folks at commandprompt need to be told about this. Loudly.
It's a serious packaging error.
Just notified L
