Bruce Momjian escribió:
This has been saved for the next commit-fest:
I noticed you broke an URL that previously worked: what was
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is now
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I suggest that the URLs with Message-Ids
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
This has been saved for the next commit-fest:
I noticed you broke an URL that previously worked: what was
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is now
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I suggest
Bruce Momjian escribió:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I noticed you broke an URL that previously worked: what was
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is now
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I suggest that the URLs with Message-Ids are stored
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I noticed you broke an URL that previously worked: what was
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is now
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I suggest that the URLs
Bruce Momjian escribió:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My point is that you should only _add_ Message-Ids, not remove them.
You can move the messages from one queue to the other to your heart's
content, but the Message-Id URL should continue to work with no changes.
Well, when an email is
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My point is that you should only _add_ Message-Ids, not remove them.
You can move the messages from one queue to the other to your heart's
content, but the Message-Id URL should continue to work with no changes.
bruce wrote:
I am assuming you use hard links -- obviously this doesn't work with
symlinks. (My script creates hard links.)
I was using symlinks. I try to avoid hardlinks that cross directories
--- not sure why, probably because I can't easily manage them to find
out what something is
Bruce Momjian escribió:
OK, I remember now. The problem wasn't symlinks but that mhonarc
generates URLs relative to the current directory. If we have message-id
files outside the directory, links like Thread Next will not work. We
could try to change those to absolute with a script. The
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
OK, I remember now. The problem wasn't symlinks but that mhonarc
generates URLs relative to the current directory. If we have message-id
files outside the directory, links like Thread Next will not work. We
could try to change those to
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribi?:
OK, I remember now. The problem wasn't symlinks but that mhonarc
generates URLs relative to the current directory. If we have message-id
files outside the directory, links like Thread Next will not work. We
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ahh, thanks for pointing it out. I think I will use an HTTP redirect.
How do you know which directory to redirect to?
The script gets the directory as a parameter.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
Please note that this patch tries to automate
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
NikhilS wrote:
* Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
-hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
suggested syntax or this syntax.
* There are some additional
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
be needed in the first place?
I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 20:15 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
working on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this
patch might not be needed in the first place?
We should wait to apply, but not wait to discuss. Somebody
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 11:18 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
--- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
once it is applied.
The
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
working
on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might
not
be
: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NikhilS wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
working
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
NikhilS wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch. There
was discussion
Hi,
Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch. There
was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
Please note that this patch tries to automate the activities that currently
are carried out
21 matches
Mail list logo
