On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> I have updated the commitfest submission to link to the correct patch
>> email.
>>
>>
> Thanks Gurjeet.
>
>
>> I initially thought that this patch deserves accompanying do
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > I would like to nominate Craig Ringer to be independent CF mgr for Jan2013
> > CF.
>
> Seconded. I particularly like the fact that Craig is not already a PG
> developer, so he's not going to be working on his own patches.
So when can he sta
Simon Riggs escribió:
> On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
> >>
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
> >> the CF process.
> >
> > What can we do to get it back on track?
>
> "Totally lost control
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I made some changes to this, and I think the result (attached) is
> cleaner overall.
>
> Now, this review is pretty much unfinished as far as I am concerned;
> mainly I've been trying to figure out how it all works and improving
> some stuff
2013-01-16 14:18 keltezéssel, Abhijit Menon-Sen írta:
At 2013-01-16 13:08:27 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
One start might be to actually start having commitfest managers.
(I'm skipping over this point, since Craig's nomination as CF manager is
being discussed elsewhere in this thread.)
A
* Daniel Farina (dan...@heroku.com) wrote:
> I have been skimming the commitfest application, and unlike some of
> the previous commitfests a huge number of patches have had review at
> some point in time, but probably need more...so looking for the red
> "Nobody" in the 'reviewers' column probably
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of the CF
> process.
I concur.
> Quite aside from the lack of progress on closing CF3, major
> hackers who should know better are submitting significant new feature
> patches now, despite our agreeme
* Claudio Freire (klaussfre...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Well, there's the fault in your logic. It won't be as linear.
I really don't see how this has become so difficult to communicate.
It doesn't have to be linear.
We're currently doing massive amounts of parallel processing by hand
using partitioni
At 2013-01-16 13:08:27 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote:
>
> One start might be to actually start having commitfest managers.
(I'm skipping over this point, since Craig's nomination as CF manager is
being discussed elsewhere in this thread.)
> As in it technical works, but it's better to do it in
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:01:04PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 15 January 2013 22:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Why is this being discussed now?
>>> >
>>> > It is for 9.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
>> you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
>> there. The commitfest that started on Jan 15th has 65 extra items.
>> Anyth
I just realized that my patch that turned XLogRecPtr into a uint64
changed the on-disk format of GiST indexes, because the NSN field in the
page header is an XLogRecPtr. Oops. Fortunately that's easy to fix. I
avoided the same issue with LSNs by continuing to use the old two-field
struct in the
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>> At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>>>
>>> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
>>> the CF process.
>>
>> What can we do to get it back on track?
>
Hi,
On 2013-01-16 01:28:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's a compiler bug.
Gah. Not again. Not that I am surprised, but still.
> icc 11.1 apparently thinks that this loop in doPickSplit:
> (Why does it think it needs to prefetch an array it's only going to
> write into? Is IA64's cache hardware
On 16 January 2013 08:21, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
>> the CF process.
>
> What can we do to get it back on track?
"Totally lost control" is an overstatement. The current situa
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
>> the CF process.
>
> What can we do to get it back on track?
Not sure. One start might be to actually start having
On 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
> > you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
> > there. The commitfest that started on Jan 15th has 65 extra items.
> > Anyth
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:01:04PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 15 January 2013 22:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> >> Why is this being discussed now?
>> >
>> > It is for 9.4 and will take months. I didn't think there was a better
>> > t
On 07.01.2013 16:23, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Since my other patch against pg_basebackup is now committed,
this patch doesn't apply cleanly, patch rejects 2 hunks.
The fixed up patch is attached.
Now that I look at this a high-level perspective, why are we only
worried about timeouts in the C
2013/1/15 Peter Eisentraut :
> On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There are some system administration functions that have hardcoded
>> superuser checks, specifically:
>>
>> pg_reload_conf
>> pg_rotate_logfile
>> pg_read_file
>> pg_read_file_all
>> pg_read_binary_file
>> pg_read_binar
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> There are still 34 items needing attention in CF3. I suggest that, if
>> you have some spare time, your help would be very much appreciated
>> there. The commitfest that started on Jan 15th has 65 extra items.
>> Anyt
Hi Peter,
Idea is really very good.
About the patch:
Patch looks good to me.
Applied cleanly on latest sources. make / make install / make check /
initdb everything works well.
Tested with few options and it is working well.
However, I think you need to add this in docs. Letting people know abo
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
> the CF process.
What can we do to get it back on track?
I know various people (myself included) have been trying to keep CF3
moving, e.g. sending followup mail, adjusting patch
101 - 123 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
