On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
solution is where people need it to be. If not...
Don't know about the policy to put things in already-released-version
but if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, October 10, 2007 07:09:20 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
solution is where people need it to be. If not...
Don't know about the
Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
solution is where people need it to be. If
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features.
I can't think of any contrib modules we've added that also required
backwards comptible modules to be released on foundry at the
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features.
I can't think of any contrib modules we've added that also required
backwards comptible
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if we had not had a
horribly long period beween feature freeze and beta.
I'm not sure about that. The bottom line to me is that we are doing a
favor to the Slony and Skytools projects, who figured out
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it included, or
isn't it? IMHO, that distinction need to be clear, and I thought we
were working (if not actively then at least
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:20:45AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it included, or
isn't it? IMHO, that distinction need to be
Did it? I see nothing for txid in relesase.sgml.
Right. release.sgml will be updated in batches as we near final
release. We don't update for individual commits.
Ok. I will explain about txid for local users myself.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
---(end of
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:58 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:20:45AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it
Simon Riggs wrote:
I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
solution is where people need it to be. If not...
Don't know about the policy to put things in already-released-version
but if it's not the case, we could at least put the code somewhere in
the
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +, Jan Wieck wrote:
Log Message:
---
Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
on CORE previously.
This module offers transaction ID's containing the original XID and the
transaction epoch as a bigint value to
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Or I could've missed the discussion on -hackers that actually took place -
in that case, just discard this message. but the only one I recall is
someone asking for pl/proxy to go in.
There was some discussion (subject: Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to
user
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I share your other concerns. This process certainly seems to have been
less than transparent.
FWIW, Jan asked -core about a week ago whether it'd be okay to add this
code post-beta, and we concluded it would be okay on the grounds that
(1) we've always
On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +, Jan Wieck wrote:
Log Message:
---
Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
on CORE previously.
To explain the situation, the public discussion about the
Marko Kreen wrote:
Now as you can read from recent disussion we had, we found out
that it would be *really* *really* cool if it would appear
in 8.3... Talk about last moment...
That discussion didn't happen on any list I read, so to me it just came
as a bolt from the blue.
Surely
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +, Jan Wieck wrote:
Log Message:
---
Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
on CORE previously.
To explain the situation, the public
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marko Kreen wrote:
Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
their own opinion.
Right. I can see your
On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marko Kreen wrote:
Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
their
On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 10/8/07, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +, Jan Wieck wrote:
Log Message:
---
Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
on
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marko Kreen wrote:
Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marko Kreen wrote:
Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
their own opinion.
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it included, or
isn't it? IMHO, that distinction need to be clear, and I thought we
were working (if not actively then at least passively) to retire
contrib, moving things either to core or to
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it included, or
isn't it? IMHO, that distinction need to be clear, and I thought we
were working (if not actively then at least passively) to retire
contrib, moving things either to
Tom Lane wrote:
(1) we've always been laxer about contrib than the core code,
While that appears to be true, I think
(a) there is no technical reason allowing us to do that, and
(b) most people don't seem to like it.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:38:48 -0400
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 16:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The whole contrib thing confuses a lot of users. Is it included, or
isn't it? IMHO, that distinction need to be clear, and I thought we
were working (if not
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:32:55 +0200
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marko Kreen wrote:
Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
my
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. My thought is still that if it isn't good enough for core, it
shouldn't be in contrib. If it *is* good enough, and we want it, we
should accept that it came in long after freeze and put it in core
anyway. If it *isn't*, then it should be on
A Dimarts 09 Octubre 2007, Joshua D. Drake va escriure:
Contrib is just a dead zone for the user populous. Most people consider
it unsupported *stuff* with no particular purpose (regardless of the
real meaning).
I think no visible documentation is the reason for this misconception and 8.3
Tom Lane wrote:
So I have no interest in trying to retire contrib. I think there's
room for debate about exactly which modules to include, of course.
I dont' think there's much call for retiring it. I think there is
interest in renaming it, as contrib is a wholly misleading
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:32:19PM +, Jan Wieck wrote:
Log Message:
---
Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as discussed
on CORE previously.
This module offers transaction ID's containing the original XID and the
transaction epoch as a bigint
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
More question. Who is in charge of updating HISTORY? I see no commit
messages for this.
It is a generated file.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
More question. Who is in charge of updating HISTORY? I see no commit
messages for this.
It is a generated file.
I mean release.sgml.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
More question. Who is in charge of updating HISTORY? I see no commit
messages for this.
It is a generated file.
I mean release.sgml.
Tom and others made commits to this and we will update it again before
final.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
More question. Who is in charge of updating HISTORY? I see no commit
messages for this.
It is a generated file.
I mean release.sgml.
Tom and others made commits to this and we will update it again before
final.
Did it? I see nothing for txid in
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
More question. Who is in charge of updating HISTORY? I see no commit
messages for this.
It is a generated file.
I mean release.sgml.
Tom and others made commits to this and we will update it again before
final.
Did it? I
38 matches
Mail list logo
