On Mon, 2005-19-09 at 10:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Any change like that would require another initdb. If we were going to
> force another initdb, my vote would be to revert these functions to
> where they were in beta1.
What purpose would that serve? About the only thing purpose I can see is
to
lug"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave
Page",
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Wrap Up ...
> +1 on reverting them back then ... and on
> a quick beta3 (ie. by end of week?)
+1 from me as well.
/D
-Unmodified Original Message-
On Mo
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there a reason the old/new can't be aliaseed to each other, instead of
the old just being removed?
Any change like that would require another initdb. If we were going to
force another initdb, my vote would
> > Is there a reason the old/new can't be aliaseed to each
> other, instead
> > of the old just being removed?
>
> Any change like that would require another initdb. If we
> were going to force another initdb, my vote would be to
> revert these functions to where they were in beta1. It was
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a reason the old/new can't be aliaseed to each other, instead of
> the old just being removed?
Any change like that would require another initdb. If we were going to
force another initdb, my vote would be to revert these functions to
wher
> > Also, the change to pg_cancel_backend breaks backwards
> compatibility
> > with 8.0, which is a whole lot worse than breaking it with
> 8.1-beta1.
>
> Yeah, I thought about that (and Bruce and I already discussed
> it offlist before I committed the changes). The function was
> newly added
> >>> Also, the change to pg_cancel_backend breaks backwards
> compatibility
> >>> with 8.0, which is a whole lot worse than breaking it with
> >> 8.1-beta1.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, core doesn't see this as backward
> compatibility break,
> >> instead it's regarded as adjustment of a new funct
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Having spent days, no, weeks deciding on that name on list I do not
want to see it change this late, especially as we'll now need to go
and update pgAdmin again!
Fortunately, pgAdmin doesn't use that function, but only the
basic pg_relation_size(). P
On Sat, 2005-17-09 at 14:47 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Also, the change to pg_cancel_backend breaks backwards compatibility
> with 8.0, which is a whole lot worse than breaking it with 8.1-beta1.
Yeah, I thought about that (and Bruce and I already discussed it offlist
before I committed the c
> >>Having spent days, no, weeks deciding on that name on list I do not
> >>want to see it change this late, especially as we'll now need to go
> >>and update pgAdmin again!
>
> Fortunately, pgAdmin doesn't use that function, but only the
> basic pg_relation_size(). Phew!
Good for you :-)
>
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I thought we'd more or less dropped that idea based on Andreas'
responses.
I've heard no argument against renaming
pg_complete_relation_size() to
pg_total_relation_size()
Having spent days, no, weeks deciding on that name on list I
do not want to see it change thi
> > > I thought we'd more or less dropped that idea based on Andreas'
> > > responses.
> >
> > I've heard no argument against renaming
> pg_complete_relation_size() to
> > pg_total_relation_size()
>
> Having spent days, no, weeks deciding on that name on list I
> do not want to see it change th
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 September 2005 14:57
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Beta2 Wrap Up ...
>
> On Fri, 2005-16-09 at 08:47 +0100, Dave Pag
On Fri, 2005-16-09 at 08:47 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Perhaps you could allow 24 hours before committing potentially
> controversial changes in future?
My apologies for the rush -- I normally would wait longer for a
consensus. In fact, I _was_ waiting for a consensus until I saw that the
wrap for
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
> Sent: 16 September 2005 06:38
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Wrap Up ...
>
> On Thu, 2005-15-09
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
> Sent: 16 September 2005 03:48
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Beta2 Wrap Up ...
>
> On Thu, 200
On Thu, 2005-15-09 at 22:06 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> One change that I would like to get into beta2 is the proposed
> refactoring of some of the new system info / administration functions.
Ok, this is done: the changes have been committed to CVS HEAD and the
catalog version number has been bump
On Thu, 2005-15-09 at 22:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I thought we'd more or less dropped that idea based on Andreas'
> responses.
I've heard no argument against renaming pg_complete_relation_size() to
pg_total_relation_size() and changing the functions that return an
integer status code to make th
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One change that I would like to get into beta2 is the proposed
> refactoring of some of the new system info / administration functions.
I thought we'd more or less dropped that idea based on Andreas'
responses.
regards, tom lane
-
On Thu, 2005-15-09 at 21:09 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Tomorrow afternoon, we are planning on packaging up Beta2 .. if anyone is
> sitting on something that should get in before that happens, or has a bug
> they are sitting on, please let us know ...
One change that I would like to get int
Tomorrow afternoon, we are planning on packaging up Beta2 .. if anyone is
sitting on something that should get in before that happens, or has a bug
they are sitting on, please let us know ...
I am planning on wrapping things at around noon my time (~3pm GMT, I
believe, if I have my timezones
21 matches
Mail list logo
