> On 14 Feb 2024, at 21:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2024, at 19:51, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:04:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
Attached is a diff to show what it would look like to remove adminpack
(catalog
vers
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 2:18 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> >>> Searching on Github and Debian Codesearch I cannot find any reference to
> >>> anyone
> >>> using any function from adminpack. With pgAdminIII being EOL it might be
> >>> to
> >>> remove it now rather than be on the hook to mainta
> On 14 Feb 2024, at 19:51, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:04:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> On 14 Feb 2024, at 11:35, Dave Page wrote:
That said, pgAdmin III has been out of support for many years, and as
far as I know, it (and simi
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:04:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 14 Feb 2024, at 11:35, Dave Page wrote:
>>> That said, pgAdmin III has been out of support for many years, and as
>>> far as I know, it (and similarly old versions of EDB's PEM which was
>>> based on it) w
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 14 Feb 2024, at 11:35, Dave Page wrote:
>> That said, pgAdmin III has been out of support for many years, and as far as
>> I know, it (and similarly old versions of EDB's PEM which was based on it)
>> were the only consumers of adminpack. I would not be sad to see
> On 14 Feb 2024, at 11:35, Dave Page wrote:
> That said, pgAdmin III has been out of support for many years, and as far as
> I know, it (and similarly old versions of EDB's PEM which was based on it)
> were the only consumers of adminpack. I would not be sad to see it removed
> entirely
Sear
Hi
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 at 21:31, Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:29 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > On that note though, we might want to consider just dropping it
> altogether in
> > v17 (while fixing the incorrect hint in backb
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:29 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> On that note though, we might want to consider just dropping it altogether in
> v17 (while fixing the incorrect hint in backbranches)? I can't imagine
> adminpack 1.0 being in heavy use today, and skimming pgAdmin code it seems
> it's
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 21:46, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:39:06PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2024, at 21:32, Bharath Rupireddy
>>> wrote:
>>> I happened to notice a typo in pg_rotate_logfile in ipc/signalfuncs.c
>>> - the hint message wrongly mentions t
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:39:06PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024, at 21:32, Bharath Rupireddy
>> wrote:
>> I happened to notice a typo in pg_rotate_logfile in ipc/signalfuncs.c
>> - the hint message wrongly mentions that pg_logfile_rotate is part of
>> the core; which is actua
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 21:32, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> I happened to notice a typo in pg_rotate_logfile in ipc/signalfuncs.c
> - the hint message wrongly mentions that pg_logfile_rotate is part of
> the core; which is actually not. pg_logfile_rotate is an adminpack's
> 1.0 SQL function dropped
11 matches
Mail list logo
