I already told you that your changes will only appear in 9.1 --- we don't
usually backpatch wording changes. You can see the development docs here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/index.html
---
Les
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Chris Meller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I do like the chapter title there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at "Home", we actually have two of them. The "Home" at
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
> >
> > We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> > without any discussion doesn't create one. ?It's
>From Chapter 31, p 589
This function opens a new database connection using the parameters taken from
two NULL-terminatedarrays. The first, keywords, is defined as an array of
strings, each one being a key word. The second,values, gives the value for each
key word. Unlike PQsetdbLogin below, t
it appears that PDF files need no reformatting, and that it is ok to allow long
command lines to be truncated by the right margins, or even better, that
pronouns that refer back to a noun, are not specific enough. One has to stop
and think, --- to which noun is "this" (a pronoun) referring to.
Bruce,
Had to look up some stuff given the splintering of Solaris:
==
Solaris 2.6 to 2.9 (Solaris 6 to Solaris 9)
The default maximum size of a shared memory segment is too low for
PostgreSQL. The relevant settings can be changed in /etc/system, for
example:
set shmsys:
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
> >
> > We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> > without any discussion doesn't create one. ?It's
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
>
> We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> without any discussion doesn't create one. It's hopeless to imagine
> that you'll ever achieve any uniformity t
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
>
> We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> without any discussion doesn't create one. It's hopeless to imagine
> that you'
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >>> remove tags.
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> >
Robert Haas writes:
> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
without any discussion doesn't create one. It's hopeless to imagine
that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way. It won't last long
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian writes:
>> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >>> remove tags.
>> >
>> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
>> >
>> >> Can I will use git ammend t
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> remove tags.
> >
> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> >
> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> > How about gi
13 matches
Mail list logo
