Tom Lane wrote:
Uh guys ... what I *said* was:
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
development items, or admit that they won't happen for 7.3.
By which I meant that in July we
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, but there is a downside to this. We have trouble enough figuring
out if a patch is a feature or bug fix during beta. How are people
going to decide if a feature is big or not to work on during August?
It has a paralyzing effect on our
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yes, but there is a downside to this. We have trouble enough figuring
out if a patch is a feature or bug fix during beta. How are people
going to decide if a feature is big or not to work on during August?
It has a
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is the idea were are supposed to go into beta with a bug-free release
that bother me.
But its you that's always tried to advocate that ... no? If not, then I
am confused, cause I know *I've* never ... to me, switching to beta mode
has always been
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am concerned about slowing down too early. We did that in previous
releases and didn't get the beta focus we needed, and it was too
paralyzing on people to know what is to be slowed and what to keep
going. I
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will say that I was disapointed by previous release delays and will be
more vocal about moving things forward than I have in the past.
I don't know ... I kinda like being able to confidently say to clients
that the latest release is always the most
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will say that I was disappointed by previous release delays and will be
more vocal about moving things forward than I have in the past.
I don't know ... I kinda like being able to confidently say to clients
that the
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:01:40 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is inevitable that there be enough binary file changes the
pg_upgrade will not work for 7.3 --- it just seems it is only a matter
of time.
As far as it concerns changes proposed by me, I'll (try to)
Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:01:40 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is inevitable that there be enough binary file changes the
pg_upgrade will not work for 7.3 --- it just seems it is only a matter
of time.
As far as it concerns changes
Uh guys ... what I *said* was:
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
development items, or admit that they won't happen for 7.3.
By which I meant that in July we should start hounding anyone
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
development items, or admit that they won't
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what about WITHOUT OIDS? I know dropping the OID from some tables and
keeping it for others is not trivial, because t_oid is the _first_
field of HeapTupleHeaderData. I'm vaguely considering a few possible
implementations and
On Thu, 02 May 2002 21:10:40 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is saving 4 bytes per tuple a darn good reason?
[...] Now if
we could get rid of 8 bytes in the header, I'd get excited ;-)
Tom,
what about WITHOUT OIDS? I know dropping the OID
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what about WITHOUT OIDS? I know dropping the OID from some tables and
keeping it for others is not trivial, because t_oid is the _first_
field of HeapTupleHeaderData. I'm vaguely considering a few possible
implementations and will invest more work in
On Tue, 21 May 2002 09:57:32 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what about WITHOUT OIDS? I know dropping the OID from some tables and
keeping it for others is not trivial, because t_oid is the _first_
field of HeapTupleHeaderData. I'm vaguely
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That was one of the possible solutions I thought of, unfortunately the
one I'm most afraid of. Not because I think it's not the cleanest
way, but I don't (yet) feel comfortable enough with the code to rip
out oids from system tables.
The system
On Tue, 21 May 2002 11:53:04 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The system tables that have OIDs will certainly continue to have OIDs.
That's clear. I should have written: ... rip out oids from tuple
headers of system tables.
Ugh. While certainly we should have been using accessor
macros
Manfred Koizar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No comment on a planned 7.3 timeframe? :-(
I think we are planning to go beta in late summer (end of August, say).
Probably in July we'll start pressing people to finish up any major
development items, or admit that they won't happen for 7.3. So we've
21 matches
Mail list logo
