It seems to me that the terms "physical", "logical", and "binary" are
always relative to the perspective of the component being worked on.
"Physical" often means "one level of abstraction below mine, and upon which
my work builds". "Logical" means "my work's level of abstraction". And
"Binary" m
Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 10:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
The point of Andres's patch set is to introduce a new tec
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I think "physical" and "logical" are fine and they seem to be well known
> terminology. Oracle uses those words and I have also seen many places use
> "physical backup" and "logical backup", for example on Barman's homepage.
There's certa
On 01/28/2014 10:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
The point of Andres's patch set is to introduce a new technology
called logical decoding; that is, the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:31:25PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
> > > On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas
> > wrote:
> > > >> I
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > >> I've rebased it here and am hacking on it still.
> > >
> > > Andres and I a
On 28 January 2014 21:56, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas
>> > wrote:
>> >> I've rebased it here and am hacking on it still.
>> >
>> > Andres and I are going
On 2014-01-28 21:48:09 +, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I've rebased it here and am hacking on it still.
> >
> > Andres and I are going back and forth between our respective git repos
> > hacking
On 28 January 2014 21:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've rebased it here and am hacking on it still.
>
> Andres and I are going back and forth between our respective git repos
> hacking on this, and I think we're getting there, but I have a
> ter
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I've rebased it here and am hacking on it still.
Andres and I are going back and forth between our respective git repos
hacking on this, and I think we're getting there, but I have a
terminological question which I'd like to submit to a wider
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 27 January 2014 16:20, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's the next version of the patchset. The following changes have been
>> made:
>> * move xmin pegging and more logic responsibility to procarray.c
>> * split all support for change
On 27 January 2014 16:20, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's the next version of the patchset. The following changes have been
> made:
> * move xmin pegging and more logic responsibility to procarray.c
> * split all support for changeset extraction from the initial slot patch
> * always registe
12 matches
Mail list logo
