Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved. Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
by other companies.
That is bound to happen no matter what. L
On K, 2005-04-27 at 22:21 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
> > I don't see happening with the current companies involved. Companies
> > are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
> > by other comp
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > Which is why (hate to beat a dead horse) many OSS projects have moved
> > to 6 month release cycles.
>
> Well, it is a two-sided thing. On one hand, businesses usually need new
> features "yesterday", but on the other hand, business would loose most
> of the benefit of get
You might remember that when we released 8.0, the plan was to have a
12-month development cycle for 8.1, unless there were Win32 problems
that required complex fixes, in which case we would have a shorter 8.1
cycle.
Well the good news is that there have been almost no Win32 problems, but
the other
Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be sane to recognize a specific PG_PROTOCOL_MAJOR
> to enter the filter-negotiation process? PG_PROTOCOL_MINOR
> would then be used to lookup and call a ptr to the filter's
> create() in CreateStreamFilter...
Looks reasonable enough to me ...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:02:40 -0400,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well the good news is that there have been almost no Win32 problems, but
> the other good news is that we are getting a lot of powerful features
> for 8.1 already:
You forgot to list the indexed aggregate feature for max and min. Wh
As a user, I would definetly prefer to see 8.1
released sooner with the feature set listed below,
than wait another 6+ months for a few other features.
Additionally, the beta may go smoother/faster if you
don't have too many huge features going in at once.
Just my opinion.
Later
Rob
--- Bruce Mom
On Thursday 28 April 2005 01:48, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
> > because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized? In fact,
> > it might have be happening already.
>
> Well that depends... If the companies are writi
Quoting Josh Berkus :
> > >Perhaps I can save you some time (yes, I have a degree in Math). If I
> > >understand correctly, you're trying extrapolate from the correlation
> > >between a tiny sample and a larger sample. Introducing the tiny sample
> > >into any decision can only produce a less accu
> > > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened
> with Fujitsu
> > > that I don't see happening with the current companies involved.
> > > Companies are already duplicating work that is also done by
> > > community members or by other companies.
> >
> > That is why we have 80 Linu
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This actually is the problem. It works as three separate statements, but
> fails as one. The server doesn't seem to recognize the SET when other
> commands come in before Sync.
[ reads some code... ] The problem is that postgres.c only inspects
Statem
Bruce Momjian wrote:
You might remember that when we released 8.0, the plan was to have a
12-month development cycle for 8.1, unless there were Win32 problems
that required complex fixes, in which case we would have a shorter 8.1
cycle.
Well the good news is that there have been almost no Win32 pro
> > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu
that
> > I don't see happening with the current companies involved.
Companies
> > are already duplicating work that is also done by community members
or
> > by other companies.
>
> That is bound to happen no matter what. Look
Hi, Tom,
Tom Lane schrieb:
> Anyway the short-term answer for Markus is "don't do it that way".
> We ought to think about making the backend's behavior more consistent,
> though.
I'll split the query into three. Having it in one query just was a
convenience here.
Thanks,
Markus
---
First I will comment my original idea.
Second I will give another improved suggestion (an idea).
I hope, that they will be useful for you.
(I don't know, wether the first one was useful at all because it showed,
that I and some others of us are not very good with statistics :( )
I haven't looked ab
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 06:47:18PM -0300, Tom Lane wrote:
> Implement sharable row-level locks, and use them for foreign key references
> to eliminate unnecessary deadlocks. This commit adds SELECT ... FOR SHARE
> paralleling SELECT ... FOR UPDATE. The implementation uses a new SLRU
> data struc
[2005-04-28 10:00] Tom Lane said:
| Brent Verner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Would it be sane to recognize a specific PG_PROTOCOL_MAJOR
| > to enter the filter-negotiation process? PG_PROTOCOL_MINOR
| > would then be used to lookup and call a ptr to the filter's
| > create() in CreateStream
Hannu,
> But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
> some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
> of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.
Yeah, we should announce the mailing list. Actually, I did direct e-mail a
bunch of people (
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One point I didn't quite understand was the business about XLogging
> heap_lock_tuple. I had to reread your mail to -hackers on this issue
> several times to get it (as you can see I don't fully grok the WAL
> rules). Now, I believe that heap_mark4upda
Robert Treat wrote:
> ISTM the allure of differentiation and branding is going to be too strong for
> us to prevent such things. An easy way to differentiate is to add some
> proprietary/unique extension to the main code and then package that up. If
> you have to have all your extensions be put
> Now, if we can come up with something better than the ARC algorithm ...
Tom already did. His clock-sweep patch is already in the 8.1 source.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:47:45PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
What version of PostgreSQL are you using
The latest and greatest from CVS.
Which branch? HEAD? REL8_0_STABLE?
Sorry. To me "latest" always defaults to HEAD and by "greatest" I mean
the coming 8
22 matches
Mail list logo
