Bruce Momjian writes:
>Note: If you are upgrading an existing system and are going to
>install the new files over the old ones, then you should have
>backed up your data and shut down the old server by now, as
>explained in the Section called If You
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
> >
> >
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
>
> It seems a reasonably safe change
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
>
> It seems a reasonably safe change
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned abo
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
>
> > At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
> >
> > Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
> >
> >
> > >Should we?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I c
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
>
> Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
>
>
> >Should we?
>
> Yes.
I concur. The problems of a too-low fsm setting a
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
Should we?
Yes.
Philip Warner| __-
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
> > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
> > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news w
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. Should we?
---
Philip Warner wrote:
> At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
> >the ne
At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything?
Seeing the setting for MAX_FSM_RELATIONS bumped to 1000 would be good
(patch already sent)
---
'K, I'm going to remove the tar files ... Bruce, can you go through these
and get them fixed up?
Peter, I have to take part of the blame away from Tom ... I'm on the road
tomrorow afternoon to Ontario, and won't be back online until *late* Fri,
so we kinda rushed it all ...
Tom, we tried ... I'l
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
> > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
> > will not be required.
>
> That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
> du
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a
> rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my
> only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning
> instead of this evening, just want to make sure tha
Bruce Momjian writes:
> How do you do that? Do you manually reformat the whole file after you
> generate it, or do you just cut-paste the new release info into
> /HISTORY so the old manual formatting remains? It did line break badly.
I put in the changes I had in mind and reformatted it, so as
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
> pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
> will not be required.
That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
dump/restore will not be required. ;-) In
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > >
> > > >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> > > >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> > > >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> > >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> > >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> > >a new major version number for thi
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
> > > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
> >
> > Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you wan
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
> > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
>
> Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it?
Just curious as to w
If it's all, perhaps we should reword as:
... has a new major version number for this release and will require
recompilation of client code.
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 14:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> > up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
>
> Plenty...
>
> The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one
> factual mistake tha
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> >a new major version number for this release, which may require
> >recompilation of c
Bruce Momjian writes:
>A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
>should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
>a new major version number for this release, which may require
>recompilation of client code in certain cases.
s/cert
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Plenty...
The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one
factual mistake that needs to be fixed. The HISTORY file nee
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has
> > > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ...
> > >
> > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> >
> > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fi
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> > up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
>
> Tarball looks good from here.
Great, put out a short techy announcement this
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
> - pgsql-announce gets the tech version for every release.
> - Marc's full contacts list get the major version notices in press
> format with a link to the tech version.
> - Marc's smaller techy contacts list (freshmeat, /. etc.) get a small
> press release w
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Tarball looks good from here.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 December 2002 16:34
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
>
>
> "Mar
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>> Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> re
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 08:53, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> > To: Robert Treat
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ...
On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
> are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
> minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site
> (freshmeat, slashdot, etc.
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don'
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> > > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> > really news worthy ... :(
>
> I don't know, if yo
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists,
gt; > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has a
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
> > the websites getting updated or perhaps ge
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> > To: Robert Treat
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> To: Robert Treat
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wro
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
> the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
> has been done?
No, we don't do
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
has been done?
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:18, Marc G. Fournier wrote
43 matches
Mail list logo
