-Original Message-
From: Josh Berkusjosh@agliodbs.com
Sent: 18/03/06 01:55:04
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.orgpgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update
Heck, if you have
an idea for a
Has anyone built postgresql on this platform ?
Does it work ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Mar 18, 2006, at 22:17 , Dave Cramer wrote:
Has anyone built postgresql on this platform ?
Yes, there have been reports that it builds. You can check the
archives for details.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
---(end of
Satoshi Nagayasu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm *really* *really* interested in making PostgreSQL to be vacuum-less.
Can we have a vacuum-less PostgreSQL in the future? How?
I don't foresee that ever happening. AFAICS a non-vacuuming MVCC system
would have to be implemented just like Oracle
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 22:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
-- There are only 13 days left to submit a proposal. Please do so. We'd
rather not be forced into a last-minute rush to evaluate all of the stuff
in April. Remember this is a family event so you
Tom,
On 3/17/06 9:59 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would buy what exactly?
I guess you didn't read the other 80% of the post.
In short, faster performance through more aggressive runtime compilation. A
JIT for the database kernel. It's not like I'm on shaky ground here - other
Tom,
On 3/17/06 12:18 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One user with ability to enter arbitrary SQL commands can *always* blow
your resource planning away. Blaming such things on work_mem is
seriously misguided.
Agreed - that's why we need to split this discussion into the two
Satoshi,
I'm *really* *really* interested in making PostgreSQL to be vacuum-less.
Can we have a vacuum-less PostgreSQL in the future? How?
I've heard a couple other requests for dealing with vaccuum. I think a
Fixing Vacuum Round-Table might be a valuable session if we have someone to
lead
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 22:36 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
Yes, there have been reports that it builds. You can check the
archives for details.
Are we prepared to declare that OS/X on Intel is an officially supported
platform for the 8.1 release series? If so, we should add that
information
On Mar 18, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 22:36 +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
Yes, there have been reports that it builds. You can check the
archives for details.
Are we prepared to declare that OS/X on Intel is an officially
supported
platform for the 8.1
Luke Lonergan wrote:
Tom,
On 3/17/06 9:59 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would buy what exactly?
I guess you didn't read the other 80% of the post.
In short, faster performance through more aggressive runtime compilation. A
JIT for the database kernel. It's not like I'm on
Seeing failure on 8.1 as well.
BTW, I keep forwarding these, but is there any need? Are enough hackers on the
status change lists anyway?
/D
-Original Message-
From: PG Build Farm[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18/03/06 02:13:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2006-03-18 kell 12:38, kirjutas Rod Taylor:
This will, presumably, be a very PostgreSQL friendly group so a sales
pitch isn't really required.
How about the opposite? Tom Lanes list of areas that PostgreSQL does a
poor job and a detailed explanation as to how that
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
I am really interested in the concurrency control part of the PostgreSQL. I
can see the MVCC/lock rules there, and basically I can follow them -- but
there are so many if-else in the rules, so the problem always for me is: how
can we gaurantee that the rules are complete
14 matches
Mail list logo
