> Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:29, kirjutas Magnus Hagander:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:48:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > db=# alter table isi.items_stat drop constraint items_stat_item_id_fkey;
> > > > ERROR: "items_pkey" is
Pedro Belmino wrote:
> 4. Tried to attach the id of the process to the debugger and gave the error:
> "Unable to open socket file: target process not responding or HotSpot VM not
> loaded"
You're trying to use a Java debugger to attach to a non-Java program
(Postgres). That's not going to work. Us
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:24:07AM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Hi,
> I think i have a initial Implementation. It has some bugs and i am working
> on fixing it. But to show the advantages, I want to show the number of
> Logical I/Os on the screen. In order to show that, i tried enabl
Hi Hannu,
On 10/14/07 12:58 AM, "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What has happened in reality, is that the speed difference between CPU,
> RAM and disk speeds has _increased_ tremendously
Yes.
> which makes it even
> more important to _decrease_ the size of stored data if you want g
On 10/2/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, the test right above that means that we'll fail if the user
> > tries something like "row_variable := NULL;":
>
> The patch you seem to have in mind would allow
> row_variable := int_va
regression=# SELECT plainto_tsquery('the any');
NOTICE: query contains only stopword(s) or doesn't contain lexeme(s), ignored
plainto_tsquery
-
(1 row)
regression=# select ''::tsquery;
NOTICE: tsearch query doesn't contain lexeme(s): ""
tsquery
-
(1 row)
IMHO, i
Those who have been with the community from long ago might remember
discussion about implementing a undo log. The big advantage of this is
that it allows UPDATE to _replace_ rows and limits the amount of cleanup
required for UPDATEs.
I am hoping that with HOT we will no longer have any need to ev
We have had very few beta1 issues. I am thinking we should release
beta2 next week and perhaps accelerate beta and consider a final release
in November rather than December. Because of the length of our feature
freeze it is possible we are not going to have as many beta bugs.
--
Bruce Momjian
Many community members were disappointed that feature freeze took so
long, but based on the number of features added to 8.3 our feature
freeze duration was similar to previous releases.
I think our only big mistake was setting expectation that this would be
a short feature freeze. We can be proud
A Diumenge 21 Octubre 2007, Bruce Momjian va escriure:
> We have had very few beta1 issues. I am thinking we should release
> beta2 next week and perhaps accelerate beta and consider a final release
> in November rather than December. Because of the length of our feature
> freeze it is possible w
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I know I haven't been very active for a while here, but I just got to
> testing the October 3 version a bit prior to getting back to the Java
> GSS client stuff I promi
Sorry, wrong email. Nothing applied.
---
Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I know I haven't been very active for a while here, but I just got to
> testing the October 3 version a bit prior to getting back to the Java
> GSS client
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have had very few beta1 issues. I am thinking we should release
> beta2 next week and perhaps accelerate beta and consider a final release
> in November rather than December. Because of the length of our feature
> freeze it is possible we are not goi
13 matches
Mail list logo
