On March 25, 2015 09:31:24 PM David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Mitu Verma wrote:
> > Correcting the subject
>
> And this is why it is considered good form to do "compose new message"
> instead of replying to an existing one. Injecting your new topic into an
> existin
he other 5. Runs in < 10 msec
and vacuum doesn't need to run.
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Bill Moran
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:07 AM
To: Mitu Verma
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sub
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 03:58:59 +
Mitu Verma wrote:
>
> We have a customer complaining about the time taken by one of the application
> scripts while deleting older data from the log tables.
> During the deletion, customer reported that he often sees the below error and
> because of which tabl
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Mitu Verma wrote:
> Correcting the subject
>
And this is why it is considered good form to do "compose new message"
instead of replying to an existing one. Injecting your new topic into an
existing unrelated mail thread is mildly annoying.
David J.
