Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Copeland wrote:
Is it possible to automate this as part of the build
process so that they get grabbed from some version information during
the build?
Version bump is one of the few things we do
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 20:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Done.
Great. I have translation for psql half-done. I'll send it as soon as
finished.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Just wondering where I should put my modified tuning notes. I was planning
on making them section 3.7 in the Admin guide. Does that sound reasonable?
The current version can be seen at:
http://www.rhyme.com.au/manuals/pgsql-7.3/postmaster-tuning-software.html
I think it's important we
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
but I think it may be time to invent 'em.
I'd be happy to use them once created.
I think
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 09:40, Philip Warner wrote:
Just wondering where I should put my modified tuning notes. I was planning
on making them section 3.7 in the Admin guide. Does that sound reasonable?
The current version can be seen at:
At 10:25 AM 11/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
Do you see a 3.8 Tuning the Server
(Hardware) section as well?
Hardware and/or OS. I think Bruce's tuning docs tend to address the
hardware and environmental issues, so I was not planning to write anything
myself.
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/ is down
Warning: Unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: The Data Base System
is shutting down in /usr/local/www/www/idocs/opendb.php on line 3
Unable to access database
--
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
---(end of
Hi Dan,
Thanks for pointing this out.
The Admin guys are looking into it now. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.
:-/
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Dan Langille wrote:
http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/ is down
Warning: Unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: The Data Base System
is
Hi Dan,
The database for the postgresql.org sites is back up again now.
Thanks for pointing it out.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Justin Clift wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for pointing this out.
The Admin guys are looking into it now. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.
:-/
Regards
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, seeing that we don't have a third number, do people want me to
increment the interface numbers for 7.3.1, or just wait for the
increment in 7.4?
ISTM that the briefly established strategy to bump the version numbers at
the beginning of development is not
Tom Lane wrote:
It seems like somehow we need a level of FROM/WHERE producing some base
rows, and then a set of table function calls to apply to each of the
base rows, and then another level of WHERE to filter the results of the
function calls (in particular to provide join conditions to identify
I have worked with Shibashish Satpathy to add support for SCO Openserver
5.0.4 using gcc in 7.3.1. The port was accomplished via a small change
to template/sco. Seeing as it was an unsupported platform, this is a
no-risk change, because now it _does_ work.
--
Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote:
We bump at the beginning only because we _know_ we want new users to use
the newer library. (Does the runtime linker know to get the highest
minor numbered library with the same major number?)
It probably depends on the system, but the runtime linker isn't that
smart
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have worked with Shibashish Satpathy to add support for SCO Openserver
5.0.4 using gcc in 7.3.1. The port was accomplished via a small change
to template/sco. Seeing as it was an unsupported platform, this is a
no-risk change, because now it _does_ work.
Let me add
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, seeing that we don't have a third number, do people want me to
increment the interface numbers for 7.3.1, or just wait for the
increment in 7.4?
ISTM that the briefly established strategy to bump the version numbers at
the beginning of
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
but I think it may be time to invent
Philip Warner wrote:
At 10:25 AM 11/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
Do you see a 3.8 Tuning the Server
(Hardware) section as well?
Hardware and/or OS. I think Bruce's tuning docs tend to address the
hardware and environmental issues, so I was not planning to write anything
myself.
I
At 12:10 PM 12/12/2002 +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
good starting point for tuning
I think this probably sums it up.
IMO it is grandiose to call it a tuning document; at best it is a
'Misbehaviour Avoidance' document. We probably need something about the
usual database-side tuning options:
Philip Warner wrote:
At 12:10 PM 12/12/2002 +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
good starting point for tuning
I think this probably sums it up.
IMO it is grandiose to call it a tuning document; at best it is a
'Misbehaviour Avoidance' document. We probably need something about the
usual
At 08:43 PM 11/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, it isn't something you would play with regularly, like backups.
How about I call it 'Managing Server Resources' and put it between 'Runtime
Configuration' and 'Managing Kernel Resources'? ie. it becomes 3.5.
Kevin Brown wrote:
It wouldn't be a terribly bad idea to do that, but the main criteria
for bumping the major version should be binary compatibility. If
applications which link against libpq.so.2 reside on the system and
libpq.so.2.3 has binary incompatibilities with libpq.so.2.2, then
At 01:22 AM 12/12/2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
in my mind tuning activities will hold good till your database usage
changes.
What about my later suggestion of 'Managing Server Resources', going before
'Managing Kernel Resources'. Or perhaps, 'Tuning Server Resources'...
The document describes
Perhaps compression should be added to the list of protocol changes.
This way, we can allow for per packet evaluation for compression.
--
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copeland Computer Consulting
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 21:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Ian Barwick [EMAIL
Added to TODO.
---
Greg Copeland wrote:
Perhaps compression should be added to the list of protocol changes.
This way, we can allow for per packet evaluation for compression.
--
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24 matches
Mail list logo
