Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 21:55 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > So, that's what I'd recommend the Mammoth developers to do as well:
> > cherry-picking, sort of. Maybe that fulfills one or the other item on
> > our wish-list (in one way or another)...
> >
>
> I doub
Tom Lane wrote:
> It's going to be a really, really, *really* hard sell to get us to
> export any sort of external API to the parser internals. At least
> if by "API" you mean something other than "we will whack this around
> to an indefinite degree on no notice, and don't even think about
> co
Takahiro Itagaki writes:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> For example, see below from above URL: This means that we expect
>> PostgreSQL exports it's parser so that existing cluster softwares can
>> use it. Not opposite direction.
> I think they says the same practically -- at least have the same impact
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> "splitting existing projects into some 'modules', and getting the
> modules one by one into core" was not the concluion, actually.
>
> For example, see below from above URL: This means that we expect
> PostgreSQL exports it's parser so that existing cluster softwares can
>
> On 1/19/10 9:28 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> > Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> >> The conclusion is splitting existing projects into some 'modules',
> >> and getting the modules one by one into core. Voted features are here:
> >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures
"splitting existing projects
On 1/19/10 9:28 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
>> The conclusion is splitting existing projects into some 'modules',
>> and getting the modules one by one into core. Voted features are here:
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures
>>
> This page was a bit messy for so
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 21:55 +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
> Hi,
> So, that's what I'd recommend the Mammoth developers to do as well:
> cherry-picking, sort of. Maybe that fulfills one or the other item on
> our wish-list (in one way or another)...
>
I doubt we are going to spend the time to do th
Hi,
Greg Smith wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
>> The conclusion is splitting existing projects into some 'modules',
>> and getting the modules one by one into core. Voted features are here:
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures
That's certainly been one of the outcomes, however, th
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
The conclusion is splitting existing projects into some 'modules',
and getting the modules one by one into core. Voted features are here:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures
This page was a bit messy for someone who didn't attend the meeting to
follow. I j
"Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> My question is, do we have any interest in working on getting this into
> core?
We had a discussion how replication projects work together with the core
in the developer meeting on PGCon 2009 Japan.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGCon2009JapanClusterDeveloperMeeting
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> O.k. I know there is no way we will hit this for 8.5. So this is more of
> a future discussion more than anything.
Well, this is not really the time to be having such a discussion; right
now we need to all have our noses to the grindstone dealing with the
already-submi
Hello,
O.k. I know there is no way we will hit this for 8.5. So this is more of
a future discussion more than anything. We at CMD have been working
diligently on our next version of Mammoth Replicator, 1.9. It is
currently revved at 8.4. I expect that we will be close to done if not
done, by the r
12 matches
Mail list logo
