On Aug 8, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 8/8/09 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
leave me feeling that it's more than a low-level hacker's tool.
No
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Given that the FSM is now auto-managing, is there any reason to have
this tool at all?
Maybe not, but I'd be inclined to wait a release or so until we have
more field experience with the new FSM. If, in a year, FSM is something
nobody worries about
On 8/8/09 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
leave me feeling that it's
Hi,
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
leave me feeling that it's more than a low-level hacker's tool.
