On 09/22/2012 01:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Andrew,
Below is the patch that I mentioned at pgOpen. I'm pretty sure my
silly github pull request got screwed up anyway, so probably best to
ignore it. Regardless, please let me know what you think. I'd be
happy to rework it to
Andrew,
Below is the patch that I mentioned at pgOpen. I'm pretty sure my
silly github pull request got screwed up anyway, so probably best to
ignore it. Regardless, please let me know what you think. I'd be
happy to rework it to operate off of a single hash, though I think
that
On 09/10/2012 05:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc
build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build.
You keep threatening with that. You are free,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:27:49AM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
On 09/10/2012 05:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc
build in the past; maybe I need to return
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
set up a script that just runs the docs build at every
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun sep 10 11:55:58 -0300 2012:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
why would we want to publish docs for something that fails to build
and/or fails to pass regression testing - to me code and the docs for it
are a
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc
build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build.
You keep threatening with that. You are free, of course, to do anything
you want, and
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:19:00AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It is this kind of run-around that caused me to generate my own doc
build in the past; maybe I need to return to doing my own doc build.
You keep threatening
On 09/06/2012 12:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a
On 09/06/2012 03:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:33:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012:
Andrew
On 09/07/2012 06:50 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have
pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 09/05/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
set up a script that just runs the docs build at every
On 09/07/2012 09:57 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
A complete run of this process takes less than 15 minutes. And as I have
pointed out elsewhere that could be reduced substantially by skipping
certain steps. It's as simple
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie sep 07 13:50:44 -0300 2012:
There is a filter mechanism used in detecting is a run is needed, and in
modern versions of the client (Release 4.7, one version later than
guaibasaurus is currently using) it lets you have both include and
exclude
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of jue sep 06 00:33:35 -0300 2012:
On 09/05/2012 11:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
Now that you've provided the magic sauce wrt --skip-steps, can we get an
admin to implement a doc-only build that runs more
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like a lot of
complication for little or no actual
On 09/05/2012 06:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 8/29/12 11:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why does this need to be tied into the build farm? Someone can surely
set up a script that just runs the docs build at every check-in, like it
used to work. What's being proposed now just sounds like
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators
have chosen not to run the process more than once every 4 hours. That's
a choice not dictated by the process they are using, but by other
considerations concerning the machine
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators
have chosen not to run the process more than once every 4 hours. That's
a choice not dictated by the
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators
have chosen not to run the process more
Correct. I have always had a working SGML toolset. If we are not going
to have the developer site run more often, I will just go back to
setting up my own public doc build, like I used to do. I removed mine
when the official one was more current/reliable --- if that has changed,
I will
On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The only reason there is a significant delay is that the administrators
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 06:32:48PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Correct. I have always had a working SGML toolset. If we are not going
to have the developer site run more often, I will just go back to
setting up my own public doc build, like I used to do. I removed mine
when the official
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:33:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 09/05/2012 09:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:56:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 05 20:24:08 -0300 2012:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
How often do you want? After all,
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/index.html is
presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points.
Well, the old code checked every five minutes, and it rebuilt in 4
minutes, so there was a max
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 09:59:50PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
How often do you want? After all,
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/index.html is
presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points.
Well, the old code checked
On 09/05/2012 09:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
How often do you want? After all,
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/index.html is
presumably going to keep pointing to where it now points.
Well, the old code checked every five minutes, and it
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
The buildfarm code does not run if there are no changes. The job
runs, sees that there are no changes, and exits.
Right, hence it makes great sense to use it for this (as opposed to
Bruce's previous script or some other new one). While it might
On 09/05/2012 11:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
The buildfarm code does not run if there are no changes. The job
runs, sees that there are no changes, and exits.
Right, hence it makes great sense to use it for this (as opposed to
Bruce's previous
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
You mean in my copious spare time?
If you're alright with the concept, then anyone can do it. I was
looking more for your concurrence on the idea of documenting this
explicitly (which also implies that it'll be supported, etc).
I'd be happy to
On 09/05/2012 11:44 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
You mean in my copious spare time?
If you're alright with the concept, then anyone can do it. I was
looking more for your concurrence on the idea of documenting this
explicitly (which also implies that
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Where are we on building the development docs more frequently?
Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the
buildfarm client.
Where
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:58:58PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
On
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mié ago 29 21:25:11 -0400 2012:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:58:58PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11,
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Where are we on building the development docs more frequently?
Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the
buildfarm client.
Where are we on this?
Waiting on Andrew.
As far as I can see, we need
On 08/29/2012 11:20 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 22:23 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Where are we on building the development docs more frequently?
Still waiting for details on how it works to set that up on the
buildfarm client.
Where are we on this?
Waiting on Andrew.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the
usecase for needing a 5 minute
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:57:37PM -0400, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of
On 5/24/12 2:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit group commit in
release notes and documentation, and announce it as a
On 21 May 2012 19:10, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit group commit in
release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature.
First, shouldn't we be having
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:34:22PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
In passing, I noticed this:
E.1.3.12.2. pg_stat_statements
Improve pg_stat_statements to aggregate similar queries (Peter
Geoghegan, Tom Lane)
Improve pg_stat_statements' handling of PREPARE/EXECUTE statements (Tom Lane)
On 24 May 2012 22:57, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, item moved down. We have not have bug fix designation. You have
a suggestion?
I assumed you were going to put it beside the other compatibility note
relating to pg_stat_statements, Change pg_stat_statements' total_time
column to
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 24 May 2012 22:57, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, item moved down. We have not have bug fix designation. You have
a suggestion?
I assumed you were going to put it beside the other compatibility note
relating
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Concerning Have psql \copy use libpq's SendQuery(), SendQuery() is a
psql-internal
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can.
Done and committed.
---
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees with
less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas, Kevin
Grittner)
Is this note about following two commits?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:49:25PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 16.05.2012 22:38, Jeff Janes wrote:
For item:
Improve COPY performance by adding tuples to the heap in batches
(Heikki Linnakangas)
I think we should point out that the batching only applies for COPY
into unindexed
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees
with
less memory allocation overhead (Alexander Korotkov, Heikki Linnakangas,
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:38:06AM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:22:58PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Improve GiST box and point index performance by producing better trees
For these reasons, it may be timely and appropriate, from a purely
advocacy point-of-view, to call our new group commit group commit in
release notes and documentation, and announce it as a new feature.
First, shouldn't we be having this discussion on -advocacy?
To date, I've been calling it
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:11:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Concerning Have psql \copy use libpq's SendQuery(), SendQuery() is a
psql-internal interface, not a libpq interface.
The array statistics patch added new
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
On 16.05.2012 22:38, Jeff Janes wrote:
For item:
Improve COPY performance by adding tuples to the heap in batches
(Heikki Linnakangas)
I think we should point out that the batching only applies for COPY
into unindexed tables. Nice as the feature is, that is pretty big
limitation not to
I will make the adjustments outlined below as soon as I can.
---
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:37:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira eu...@timbira.com wrote:
On 12-05-2012 10:27,
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The mere ability to notice that an XLogFlush() call is unnecessary and
fastpath out could be argued to be an aboriginal group commit,
predating even commit_delay, as could skipping duplicate fsync()
requests in
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the
usecase for needing a 5 minute turnaround time? I don't buy the check
what a patch looks like, because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce wrote:
In summary, names on release note items potentially have the
following beneficial effects:
* Encouraging new developers/reviewers
* Encouraging long-established developers
* Showing appreciation to developers
*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I'd vote for starting a separate thread to solicit people's opinions
on whether we need names in the release notes. Is there anybody on
-hackers who would be offended, or would have a harder time persuading
$BOSS to let them spend time on
On 15 May 2012 17:51, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
More accurately, he seems to have thought that group commit was
already there, and he'd improved it. So saying that we're getting it
for the first time ten years later seems pretty odd to me.
Maybe it's odd, and maybe it's
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right. It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement. We've
had group commit for a long time; it just didn't work very well
before. And it's not
On May 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
So the new release item wording will be:
Add group commit capability for sessions that commit at the same
time
This is the git commit message:
Make group commit more effective.
When a backend needs to
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 09:01:03PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right. It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement. We've
had group commit for a
On 14 May 2012 17:06, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
So this group commit happens
even if users don't change these?
#commit_delay = 0 # range 0-10, in microseconds
#commit_siblings = 5 # range 1-1000
Yes, that's right - the new group commit is
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
This is the git commit message:
Make group commit more effective.
When a backend needs to flush the WAL, and someone else is already
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
The beta release announcement is on postgresql.org with a direct link
to the release notes. The notes lead off with:
NARRATIVE HERE. Major
On 12 May 2012 01:37, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right. It's not a new feature; it's a performance improvement. We've
had group commit for a long time; it just didn't work very well
before. And it's not batching the commits better; it's reducing the
lock contention around
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:37:58PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Why can't we call
In summary, names on release note items potentially have the following
beneficial effects:
* Encouraging new developers/reviewers
* Encouraging long-established developers
* Showing appreciation to developers
* Assisting future employment for developers
* Helping developers get future
On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
potential names per item.
Main authors only. Reviewers should be mentioned only in the commit log. If I
coded a
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:11:49PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
potential names per item.
Main authors
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Euler Taveira eu...@timbira.com wrote:
On 12-05-2012 10:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
How many names on a single item is ideal? The activity of reviewers and
their names on commit messages has greatly expanded the number of
potential names per item.
Main authors
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a
problem other than time - we just need to decouple it from the
buildfarm and run a separate
On fre, 2012-05-11 at 09:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
If people want the main docs building more often that's not really a
problem other than time - we just
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2012-05-11 at 09:26 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2012-05-10 at 17:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
If people want the main docs
Le jeudi 10 mai 2012 22:18:30, Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
It's been said elsewhere that adding all this to the release notes as
found on the official docs would be too bulky. How about having a
second copy of the release notes that contains authorship info as
proposed by Andrew? Then the docs
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is
with names attached to the feature/bugfix
On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How about a hybrid: we continue to identify patch authors as now, that is
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 06:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:01:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On May 10, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andrew
On 05/11/2012 10:15 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:01:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/11/2012 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:46:56PM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
On May 10,
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Let me add that I am concerned about the lack of objectivity in many of
the suggestions in this thread. This has prompted me to think that the
temptation of having names on these release note items is just too
great, and that the names should be removed.
On 05/11/2012 05:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
But in the interest of actually being productive - what *is* the
usecase for needing a 5 minute turnaround time? I don't buy the check
what a patch looks like, because that should be done *before* the
commit, not after - so it's best verified by
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter,
index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand
that we are now
On fre, 2012-05-11 at 11:32 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
You are misinterpreting this. The reason Bruce's link was removed was
that the other (official) build was set to run at the same frequency, so
Bruce's build was exactly redundant. The requirement/aspiration to have
a few minutes
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:11:54PM +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter,
index-only scans
On 10.05.2012 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
Thanks! I committed a few trivial fixes, below are a few more I wasn't
sure about:
* Add support for range data types (Jeff Davis, Tom Lane, Alexander Korotkov)
The range
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
(Why is there no time zone shown in the date/time at the top?) I think
it will eventually show up here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html
Other than the comments others have specified:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us writes:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working. (Does it always take this long to update?)
I believe the new implementation of that stuff is that the devel docs
are built
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us writes:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working. (Does it always take this long to update?)
I
On 05/10/2012 06:49 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.uswrites:
The docs finally built 90 minutes after my commit, and the URL above is
now working.
On 05/09/2012 11:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
Allow the bgwriter, walwriter, and statistics collector to sleep
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of
the pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of
reviewing it, but he didn't actually contribute any code.
It looks like reviewers have been given credit
On 10 May 2012 13:11, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why can't we call group commit group commit (and for that matter,
index-only scans index-only scans), so that people will understand
that we are now competitive with other RDBMSs in this area? Improve
performance of WAL writes
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a co-author of the
pg_stat_statements normalisation feature. He did a good job of reviewing
it, but he didn't
On 10.05.2012 13:21, Thom Brown wrote:
On 10 May 2012 04:11, Bruce Momjianbr...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git.
...
Couple typo corrections attached.
Applied.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB
On 05/10/2012 08:28 AM, Vik Reykja wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
mailto:and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:11 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I'm not really sure why you've listed Daniel Farina as a
co-author of the
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
I have completed my draft of the 9.2 release notes, and committed it to
git. I am waiting for our development docs to build, but after 40
minutes, I am still waiting:
This bit:
Previously supplied years and year masks of
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of jue may 10 07:19:53 -0400 2012:
BTW, if there has been no change a buildfarm animal normally does no
work (other than a git pull followed by the check for updates), which is
why it's often safe to schedule it very frequently. However, if you need
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
