On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
I'm just announcing here, since I'd like to see some ppl testing this out
and let us know if there are any problems ... DNS is going to take a
little while to propogate
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:26, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, mlw wrote:
The PHP site shows adds.
Ok -- but the vast majority (say, 95%) of OSS sites don't show ads.
Guess that makes us part of the elite 5% that do, eh? You had me
*raised eyebrow* Someone want to scan and post one of these?
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Lamar Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 07 January 2003 06:12
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Hackers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Is there any way of fixing the following?
164_459_openacs= \d
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near .
164_459_openacs=
We've started to upgrade the client machines, before upgrading the server
itself, but it looks like the psql client isn't backwards compatible?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
We've started to upgrade the client machines, before upgrading the server
itself, but it looks like the psql client isn't backwards compatible?
The meta-commands are not, because they now need to be schema aware.
How
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
We've started to upgrade the client machines, before upgrading the server
itself, but it looks like the psql client isn't backwards compatible
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. It is just the _cruft_ factor that has prevented us from doing
it in the past.
We've never before attempted to make psql cope with back-version
servers. It might be a good idea in future --- but it
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
so they get to make the decision...
I have no problems creating one ... Bruce?
---(end
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 14:23, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
If anyone has any 'last minute' issues they would like to see in either,
please speak now or forever hold your peace :)
Can someone post a changelog for these releases? Also what tags
Already fixed ... one of those things where per-db connection limits would
have been helpful :(
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
Warning: pg_connect() unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: FATAL 1:
Sorry, too many clients already in
Morning all ...
I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a
few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the
morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some
confirmations is always nice ;)
7.2.x isn't bison 1.75 compatible ... and most likely never will be ...
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a
few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the
morning? I did a configure
So ignore it, eh?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
Folks,
I think we should PGP sign all the official packages that are provided
for download from the various mirror sites. IMHO, this is important
because:
- ensuring that end users can trust PostgreSQL is an important part to
getting the product used
Will announce tomorrow morning if there are no issues with it ...
%ls -lt ~ftp/pub/source/v7.3.2
total 21677
-rw-r--r-- 1 pgsql pgsql70 Feb 3 11:36 postgresql-test-7.3.2.tar.gz.md5
-rw-r--r-- 1 pgsql pgsql65 Feb 3 11:36 postgresql-7.3.2.tar.gz.md5
-rw-r--r-- 1 pgsql pgsql
oh joy, here we go again ...
you are right, my mistake :( I copied out of peter's directory ... fixing
now ...
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Monday 03 February 2003 11:38, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Will announce tomorrow morning if there are no issues with it ...
Where did
Can someone point me to an online doc to read through on this?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I hate to poo-poo this, but this web of trust sounds more like a web
of confusion. I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$* to be set up to check things.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Justin put them up, but I believe that any bug reports for them should be
sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
There are Windows binaries on the PostgreSQL FTP server mirrors, for
example,
Any way to recover?
FATAL 2: open of /usr/local/pgsql/5432/pg_clog/06F6 failed: No such file or directory
The RAID controller went on our server today ... is it safe to just
'touch' the files, or is this a 'restore from backup and deal with the
losses' sort of thing? :(
-rw--- 1 pgsql pgsql 262144 Mar 5 20:06 0167
-rw--- 1 pgsql pgsql 262144 Mar 5 14:10 0166
-rw--- 1 pgsql pgsql 262144 Mar 5 09:03 0165
-rw--- 1 pgsql pgsql 262144 Mar 5 02:08 0164
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FATAL
Will get that fixed this aft (just spent the past 24hrs recovering from a
RAID controller going south, need sleep *sigh*) ... I'm the one that put
those great (and useless) descriptions in, sorry :)
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Hi,
I tried to go buy a shirt off the
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're
willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least
resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol
revisions in the past: the backend will be able to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The scenario that's appealing to me the most is this for the next release:
PostgreSQL 8.0
+ Includes PITR and the Win32 port
If the folks doing those things can get done in time, great. I'm even
willing to push
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're
willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least
resistance would be to handle it the same
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is anyone feeling we have the 7.3 release nearing? I certainly am not.
I can imagine us going for several more months like this, perhaps
through August.
seeing as how we just released v7.2, I don't see a v7.3 even going beta
until end of Summer ...
Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they
notice any differences in speed?
Thanks ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they
notice any differences in speed?
Yup. It's usable again! What did you do?
Got more RAM installed :) The archives have a buffer cache
Just curious here, but has anyone taken the time to see how others are
doing this? For instance, if we go with 1, are going against how everyone
else handles it? IMHO, its not a popularity contest ...
Personally, I do agree with #1, but I'm curious as to how those coming
from other DBMS are
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Just curious here, but has anyone taken the time to see how others are
doing this? For instance, if we go with 1, are going against how everyone
else handles it? IMHO, its not a popularity
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Okay, based on this, I'm pseudo-against ... I think, for reasons of
reducing headaches for ppl posting, there should be some sort of 'SET
oracle_quirks' operation that would allow for those with largish legacy
apps trying
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
7.3.
IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the
options have been, but which to implement haven't
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
Myself, I wonder why Oracle went
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Lincoln Yeoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Coz some things should not be rolled back. So you guys might come up with a
different keyword for it.
CONFIG: for non transactional stuff that can appear as SQL statements.
SET: for
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been thinking this over and over, and it seems to me, that the way
SETS in transactions SHOULD work is that they are all rolled back, period,
whether the transaction successfully completes OR NOT.
This
What happens inside of a nested transaction, assuming we do have those
evenually ... ?
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps we could do
SET SET TO LOCAL TO TRANSACTION;
Which would affect itself and all subsequent SET commands up to
SET
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go with your syntax I would prefer SET LOCAL to LOCAL SET , so
that LOCAL feels tied more to variable rather than to SET .
I agree. I was originally thinking that that way might require LOCAL to
become a
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
What happens inside of a nested transaction, assuming we do have those
evenually ... ?
Folks,
I don't really get it. We had a voting and I think I saw a
clear enough result with #1, transactional behaviour
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
Is this an indication of a need for [EMAIL PROTECTED]? :)
already exists as pgsql-advocacy :)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2 May 2002, mlw wrote:
Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
Le Jeudi 2 Mai 2002 01:59, David Terrell a écrit :
Provide a really good database and have fun doing it
PostgreSQL Community is commited to
On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 14:37, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:15:15AM -0400, mlw wrote:
Who's that? Anyone disagree?
why does it have to be THE BEST ? that is insulting to the other projects
like MySQL which while competitors are also
Morning all ...
Just a heads up that over the next little while, I'm planning on
making a bunch of commits in order to work on making the code able to work
natively in the above environments ... my work will mostly focus on Win32
(since I have no OS2/BeOS installs), but alot of the
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 2 May 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
The Politically Correct mission statement follows:
The PostgreSQL community is committed to creating and maintaining a good
but not the best, mostly reliable, open-source multi-purpose standards
based
On Fri, 3 May 2002, mlw wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Morning all ...
Just a heads up that over the next little while, I'm planning on
making a bunch of commits in order to work on making the code able to work
natively in the above environments ... my work will mostly focus
of the core functionality that has
held back native ports should work ...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:48 AM
To: mlw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All I'm planning on doing is changing the appropriate shm_* functions iwth
pg_shm_* functions ... if !(libapr), all those pg_shm_* functions will
have in them is the original call we've always used
On Sat, 4 May 2002, mlw wrote:
Upon doing some inspection of apache 2.x, it seems that me making a SysV
Windows .DLL for PostgreSQL, while a cool project, would be unnecessary.
The APR (Apache Portable Runtime) seems to have all the necessary support. The
problem is that it has its own API.
Well, I guess that just saved *me* alot of work ... thanks ...
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We could provide a PGSemaphore based on an APR mutex and a counter,
but I'm not sure of the performance impact. We may want to implement a
generic semaphore
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Joel Burton wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:07 PM
To: mlw
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Matthew Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
The SysV API lets us detect that case, but I don't see any
equally good way to do it if we are using anonymous shared memory.
It's a hack (and has slight security
On Sun, 5 May 2002, Joel Burton wrote:
Joel Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rather than propagating the SysV semaphore API still further, why don't
we kill it now? (I'm willing to keep the shmem API, however.)
Would this have the benefit of allow PostgreSQL to work properly in BSD
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess that just saved *me* alot of work ... thanks ...
Uh, not yet. Don't you still need a semaphore implementation that
works on Windows?
Yup ... next steps, but I believe that is what Mark is working
Or changing ISPs to a place more enlightened ...
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Joel Burton wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:36 AM
To: Joel Burton; Tom Lane; mlw
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We could get around this, of course: record the port number in the data
directory lockfile, and test for existence of the old socket
independently of trying to create a new one. But it seems ugly.
How about
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
I said:
But the backends would only have the socket open, they'd not be actively
listening to it. So how could you tell whether anyone had the socket
open or not?
Oh, I take that back, I see how you could do it: the postmaster opens
the socket *for
Since our default behavior (at startup) is to have TCP sockets disabled,
how many OSs are there that don't support UD sockets? Enough to really be
worried about?
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That would work ... but is it more portable
On Mon, 6 May 2002, mlw wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I guess that just saved *me* alot of work ... thanks ...
Uh, not yet. Don't you still need a semaphore implementation that
works on Windows?
I have a LOT of experience with Windows
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
Thanks Ross,
This sounds like a resolution.
I'd suggest keeping a copy of pgaccess in the main tree, as well, and
pushing versions from the development CVS over on a regular basis.
I am not a cvs expert. We will check this with Stanislav - our
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
But understand that those who don't need the functionality are likely not not
be thrilled by changes to a currently stable codebase. Although this config
file stuff is small potatoes compared to the Win32 stuff as recently
discussed. And for that,
Mark (mlw) ... could you generate a listing of those variables you feel
would need to be moved to a 'global structure' and post that to the list?
That would at least give us a starting point, instead of both sides
guessing at what is/would be involved ...
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have one patch for contrib/rtree_gist ( thanks Chris Hodgson for
spotting bug and test suite ). Should we submit patch for 7.2.2 and
7.3 ?
I don't know whether we will bother with a 7.2.2 release --- but if
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't know whether we will bother with a 7.2.2 release ---
We could do up a 7.2.2 ...
If ya wanna do one, no objection here. But let's see if we can't get
some
Actually, take a look at the thread starting at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00665.php
Right now, IMHO, the big show stopper is passing global variables to the
child processes in Windows ... the above thread talks about a method of
pulling together the
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Maybe Vince could set up a Win32 porting project page, and since we now seem
to have a few interested parties willing to code on a native Win32 version,
they should have their own project page. This could make communication
easier for them
Not that I'm aware of anyone making ...
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Michael Meskes wrote:
Hi,
since we will show PostgreSQL related stuff on Linuxtag in Germany next
month, I'd like to get some PostgreSQL posters for the booth. But I have
no idea where to find some.
Do we have that kind of
On 22 May 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 10:51, Lamar Owen wrote:
What isn't funny is Oliver Elphick's results on Debian, running glibc 2.2.5
(same as Red Hat 7.3's version).
This is a completely different version. Once Debian updates (in a few
years) they'll get the
On 22 May 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 11:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Unix systems have
*always* interpreted time_t as a signed offset from the epoch.
No. This always was an accident if it happens.
Do you
really think that when Unixen were first built in the early 70s,
On Thu, 23 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 May 2002, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 11:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Unix systems have
*always* interpreted time_t as a signed offset from the epoch.
No. This always was an accident if it happens.
Do you
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Michael Meskes wrote:
No, this is simply not true. The version number is what the upstream
gives its release. No more no less. What RH does is becoming as subtly
incompatible a possible. If that's the goal, it doesn't look like free
software for me. Sure all changes are
You might want to go to the archives and catch up on the whole thread and
its digressions :)
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
mlw wrote:
Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec out what you want and I'll write it
for Windows.
That being said, a SysV IPC interface for native
FreeBSD
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Since we now have an official entry in /etc/services, shouldn't we be able
to make use of it, by using getservbyname() if a nonnumeric port number is
specified?
Is any OS actually shipping us in /etc/services?
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will say that I was disapointed by previous release delays and will be
more vocal about moving things forward than I have in the past.
I don't know ... I kinda like being able to confidently say to clients
that the latest release is always the most
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, but there is a downside to this. We have trouble enough figuring
out if a patch is a feature or bug fix during beta. How are people
going to decide if a feature is big or not to work on during August?
It has a paralyzing effect on our
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is the idea were are supposed to go into beta with a bug-free release
that bother me.
But its you that's always tried to advocate that ... no? If not, then I
am confused, cause I know *I've* never ... to me, switching to beta mode
has always been
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I don't want to apply a partially-implemented feature in the last
week of August, but I don't want to slow things down during August,
because the last time we did this we were all
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I *really* wish ppl would stop harping on the length of the last beta
cycle ... I will always rather delay a release due to an *known*
outstanding bug, especially one that just needs a little bit more time
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed on all accounts ... which is why this time, I want to do a proper
branch when beta starts ... hell, from what I've seen suggested here so
far, we have no choice ... At least
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
There is a downside to changing away from that approach. Bruce
mentioned it but didn't really give it the prominence I think it
deserves: beta mode encourages developers to work on testing, debugging,
and oh yes documenting. Without that forced non
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
2. Once Branch created, any *partially implemented* features will get
rip'd out of the -STABLE branch and only fixes to the existing, fully
implement features will go in
Now, that is an interesting idea.
Ya, I thought it was when you -and-
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:41:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm thinking we should just import the current state of the files
and not worry about preserving their change history.
Fine with me, if that's easier. I just thought it might be
got it ... will try and incorporate it and see what I can come up with ...
thanks :)
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:15:05AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Jeroen ... can you send me a copy of the CVSROOT
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
[...]
As for current PostgreSQL organization, can someone explain me which W32 port
will make its way to PostgreSQL main source code? Can someone publish a
schedule for replication availability?
On 20 Jun 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Nobody is in charge, but everybody is welcome to do it, even without
being elected or nominated ;)
Still, having a success stories or advocacy section on
www.postgresq.org seems like a good idea.
Being worked on ... we are actually working on totally
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jon Franz wrote:
It could be helpful to create a mailing list just for this project,
since not all members of pg-hackers will/shall participate, and we
would probably flood this list quite a bit trying to figure out what
is the best way to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I have finally decided that our archive searching stinks. I have
emails in my mailbox that don't appear in the archives.
Our main site, http://archives.postgresql.org/ doesn't archive the
'patches' list. (It isn't listed on the main site, and
damn, I wish ppl would bring stuff like this up earlier :( I've just gone
through the configs, and think the problem(s) are fixed with this ... :(
On 21 Jun 2002, Alessio Bragadini wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 17:07, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Can we find out why the email/news gateway
to ignore ...
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Okay, just did a series of upgrades to the server to hopefully speed up
delivery a bit ... 6minutes more reasonable? let's see if it keeps up,
mind you ...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
ignore this one ...
---(end of broadcast
yup, as well as Francisco's ...
On 21 Jun 2002, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 22:06, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Okay, just did a series of upgrades to the server to hopefully speed up
delivery a bit ... 6minutes more reasonable? let's see if it keeps up,
mind you
Just a quick heads up ... I've asked Rackspace to investigate *why* the
server crashes every 24-48hrs, and given them carte-blanche to get it
fixed ... they are planning on swapping out/in hardware, as right now that
appears to be where the error messages are indicating ...
should already be fixed ...
On 23 Jun 2002, Dave Cramer wrote:
I am getting lots of errors on pgadmin.postgresql.org
Dave
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
Can we link to the fts site?
The only thing I can help with is the fts link, but I'm hesitant to
link to something that disappears. If it's going to be here and not
go away again I'll be happy to add it.
The only reason it disappeared was
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly, my feeling is, as a geek-to-geek product, PostgreSQL is already
adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code
contributors.
Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely
401 - 500 of 1670 matches
Mail list logo
