Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
or shortly afterwards?
Check bruce's 7.5 patches list (can't remember the address though :) )
I have this COMMENT ON thing ready to go, except for this darn taking in
unsigned
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
fails, almost certainly
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum script can at
least be scheduled for low-load
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott.marlowe) writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum script
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 23:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If we do a short cycle, will we have enough features to justify a
release? We could try to get PITR and Win32 done by January 1 and see
if that can happen.
It's worth noting that we've thought about doing quick major releases
in the past,
] 7.4RC1 planned for Monday
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 23:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If we do a short cycle, will we have enough features to justify a
release? We could try to get PITR and Win32 done by January 1 and see
if that can happen.
It's worth noting that we've thought about doing quick
Hello,
I know I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this but I would
like to make a suggestion about
the upcoming release.
What if we delayed until the end of the year?
The two reasons that I can come up with are:
1. The irritating (but work around capable) bigint index issue.
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if we delayed until the end of the year?
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it
Sooner or later you have to say this release is done, let's ship it.
It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
very tempting.
On the 7.5 cycle though... I thought 7.5 was basically for win32?
Sincerely,
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I know I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this but I would
like to make a suggestion about
the upcoming release.
What if we delayed until the end of the year?
The two reasons that I can come up with are:
1.
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are these folks for whom the autovacuum daemon provides no relief?
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum script can at
least be scheduled for low-load times of day. autovacuum is likely to
kick in at
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
But there is no consensus on how to fix the integer-index issues, and
I'm not
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The idea of very short release cycle for 7.5 is interesting. What is
the core's decision for point-in-time-recovery? Maybe the decision is
7.5 does not include point-in-time-recovery?
We'd like to have it in 7.5. Whether it will get done in time is
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
fails, almost certainly deferred fk constraints will as well which I
think makes this a must fix for 7.4 and is another push to
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:08:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Barring the discovery of any major new bugs, the core committee has
agreed to release 7.4RC1 on Monday. Time to get those last-minute
fixes in place.
I currently have the following
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sooner or later you have to say this release is done, let's ship it.
It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
very tempting.
On the 7.5 cycle though... I
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
But there is no consensus on
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
Any chance of putting up a torrent for it? I'd be happy to host, but
I'd have to get the link on the downloads page somehow :)
Put up a what ... ?
Google for BitTorrent. It's a pretty darn cool app
Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
or shortly afterwards?
Check bruce's 7.5 patches list (can't remember the address though :) )
I have this COMMENT ON thing ready to go, except for this darn taking in
unsigned ints from the parser business that I haven't
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
I meant related to PITR? :)
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address
Oh, sorry, only read your part --- I have not heard anything about PITR
from Patrick. I talked to him about a month ago and he hadn't made much
headway.
---
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I meant related to PITR? :)
On
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
or shortly afterwards?
That brings up another question, which is when to create the
REL7_4_STABLE branch in CVS. Offhand I think it would be good to do it
when we make RC1; any
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:51:24PM -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
Any chance of putting up a torrent for it? I'd be happy to
host, but I'd have to get the link on the downloads page somehow
:)
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) wrote:
2. More importantly the recent potential discovery by Jan on vacuum.
I have several high end users that are really beating their heads
against the wall with even lazy vacuum because of how brutal it can
be on the system. If
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
But there is no consensus on how to fix the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sooner or later you have to say this release is done, let's ship it.
It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
very tempting.
Since improving the buffer cache policy will not change any
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since improving the buffer cache policy will not change any visible
functionality other than performance ... maybe you want to convince some
people that if we find a substantial improvement for the cache policy
soon to put it into a 7.4.x release.
It's
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
fails, almost certainly deferred fk constraints will as well which I
think makes this
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
fails, almost certainly deferred fk
32 matches
Mail list logo
