http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-15 04:26 ---
Can I get a current patch through BZ?
Also, might want to recommend looking into using pgpool in 'higher volume'
situations. It is a proxy that will minimize
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2501 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status Whiteboard|Patch created, investigating|
|possible data
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev@spamassassin.apache.org
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Future |3.1.0
--- Additional
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-18 22:36 ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/18/2004 3:38 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:53:19AM -0800, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-18 22:37 ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh, forgot something. The patch doesn't create an index on
bayes_seen(msgid) -- probably should.
- --
-Rupa
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-18 22:48 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:36:45PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some questions:
Is bytea really
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-18 23:42 ---
On 11/18/2004 10:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave it as bytea...
Interesting, I think my main concern was the fact that BYTEA was the
only way to make
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-19 00:03 ---
Spoke too soon. Relying on the PK index in either order resulted in seqscans in
all cases. Very weird -- not gonna track that down. Created non-unique indices
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2478 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-31 20:04 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
BTW, anyone who wants, feel free to step in and find why there is
different data between runs. The only
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2335 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2474 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|3.0.1 |Future
--- Additional
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-10 23:35 ---
Two questions:
- are we sure we want to support PostgreSQL if the performance sucks so
bad? I guess we need to, but bleh.
- any performance impact on MySQL?
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 11:27 ---
Can't this be implemented as a Plugin, maybe even an official? I don't like
the idea of shipping optimized stuff like this in our already pretty big
default
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 13:51 ---
If our current SQL storage is MySQL-specific, we should call it MySQL and
replace it with a generic SQL one which works with every SQL server. Both the
MySQL
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 14:25 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
I thought the Perl DBI system allowed one to be DB-agnostic. Ideally
the DB should be a plugin allowing
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 14:31 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 01:51:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Additional Comments From
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 14:32 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:25:09PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does, but we need greater
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3771
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-11 14:54 ---
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specific Bayes Storage Module
DBI is just an interface layer, nothing to do with performance.
We use DBI/DBD to access the database
24 matches
Mail list logo
