On Thursday 08 September 2005 13:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Initdb already
has adaptive rules - look at the source - and Tom suggests adding
another set for max_fsm_pages. All I'm doing is to suggest that we need
to tweak those.
I'm curious how this could work... istm its fairly hard to
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Marc EBER[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/09/05 14:26:15
To: Dave Pagedpage@vale-housing.co.uk
Cc: Chuck McDevitt[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
PROTECTED], PostgreSQL-developmentpgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS]
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
Also, I notice non-breaking spaces inserted in apparently odd spots in
FAQ_MINGW.html - is there a particular reason
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 13:16, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Initdb already
has adaptive rules - look at the source - and Tom suggests adding
another set for max_fsm_pages. All I'm doing is to suggest that we need
to tweak those.
I'm curious how this
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
I ran accross an article a few
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
I
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
And anyway you need to come up with a reasonable alternative for
packagers, rather than just say don't do this.. The only one I can
think of is to run initdb as part of a package postinstall, although
packagers and especially distro preparers might find that more than
Hi all,
A remark linked to the preceding discussion:
Even if I could find some interest in compiling postgresql with Microsoft’s C
compiler, I understand the technical and organizational difficulties implied by
such a feature. If I want to rebuild from sources postgresql, I have to go the
On 8-Sep-05, at 2:18 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Well, yes. But use the word environment in singular please :-) To my
knowledge the security is full-proof with all other VM's since they
all use the standard runtime libraries.
It's not
Am Samstag, den 10.09.2005, 12:59 -0500 schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest of the
documentation? That would allow multiple output formats
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
hard to see why it should be considered a bad thing.
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
While I believe that the
I have verfied this bug exists in all pg_restore versions greater than 8.0.0
Someone else reported it way back in Feb:
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 17:12 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest of the
Tony Caduto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
basicly pg_restore prompts for the password, but no matter what you
enter it fails, the only way it works is to have
the server pg_hba.conf file set to trust. version 8.0.0 works, so it
was the result of some change in versions later than 8.0.0
Hmm.
I wrote:
Hmm. The only relevant-looking change between 8.0.0 and 8.0.1 is
this one:
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c.diff?r1=1.101.4.2;r2=1.101.4.3;f=h
I wonder if this could be messing up the password acceptance --- for
instance, by
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Hmm. The only relevant-looking change between 8.0.0 and 8.0.1 is
this one:
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c.diff?r1=1.101.4.2;r2=1.101.4.3;f=h
I wonder if this could be messing up the password acceptance --- for
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I eventually clued in and made a TOC and removed all of the Slony items,
but I'm still curious to know what exactly pg_restore had been doing for
the last hour or so.
placed for a limited time at:
http://developer.postgresql.org/~adunstan/rel8_0_stable-20050910.tgz
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
XHTML 1.0 pages has no problems with displaying when sent as text/html
and they are better served as text/html because stupid IE won't show it
right when you set mime type to application/xhtml+xml. So if you
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 00:56:11 +0200,
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
hard to see why it should be considered a bad
23 matches
Mail list logo
