Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
> I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
>
> PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
> *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I
> have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
> ju
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 18:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, I have updated the libpq major number in 7.3.X, and updated major
> and minor in HEAD. Do I need to increment the other interfaces that
> _use_ libpq, like ecpg? I think so.
I don't think so.
$ ldd /usr/lib/postgresql/lib/libecpg.so
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannu Krosing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 December 2002 19:10
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Information schema now available
>
>
> Peter Eisentraut kirjutas L, 14.12.2002 kell 05:32:
> > A basic versi
I figured out why I forgot to update the minor number for 7.3. The old
RELEASE_CHANGES file had:
bump interface version numbers
o src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc
o src/include/pg_config.h.win32
I had forgotten to explicitly list the Makefile changes.
The new list is:
bump in
I have added this info too.
---
Lee Kindness wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Some further comments on bumbing the major version number which aren't
> so cut-n-dry...
>
> Lee Kindness writes:
> > The major version number should be upda
OK, I have added this to tools/RELEASE_CHANGES. New file attached.
---
Lee Kindness wrote:
> Guys, can I take this chance to summarise the thread and when the
> major and minor versions should be updated, perhaps could be ad
Peter Eisentraut kirjutas L, 14.12.2002 kell 05:32:
> A basic version of the SQL information schema is now available in newly
> initdb'ed database installations.
Could you also post it somewhere as a plain SQL script for 7.3 ?
IMHO this should become the default way for \d, ODBC, JDBC, and other
OK, I have updated the libpq major number in 7.3.X, and updated major
and minor in HEAD. Do I need to increment the other interfaces that
_use_ libpq, like ecpg? I think so.
---
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at
b) The Group Communication blob will consist of a number of processes which
need to talk to all of the others to interrogate them for changes which may
conflict with the current write that being handled and then issue the
transaction response. This is basically the two phase commit solution with
I see it as very difficult to avoid a two stage process because there will
be the following two parts to any transaction;
1) All databases must agree upon the acceptability of a transaction before
the client can be informed of it's success. 2) All databases must be
informed as to whether or not th
--En cette belle journée de samedi 14 décembre 2002 11:59 -0500,
-- Bruce Momjian écrivait avec ses petits doigts :
>
> This sounds like two-phase commit. While it will work, it is probably
> slower than Postgres-R's method.
What exactly is Postgres-R's method ?
--
Mathieu Arnold
---
This sounds like two-phase commit. While it will work, it is probably
slower than Postgres-R's method.
---
Al Sutton wrote:
> For live replication could I propose that we consider the systems A,B, and C
> connected to each o
Hi,
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 15:31, Igor Georgiev wrote:
> In HQ they choose windows nt (i don't comment how "smart" is this decision),
> pay a lot of money to mr.Gates and now what - we say PostgreSQL is great ,
> but ..
> ( and i have personal contacts with their sysadmins i don't believe the
- Original Message -
From: "Devrim GÜNDÜZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> Also, I have something to say about win32 port.
>
> I'm a Linux u
Hi,
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 13:26, mlw wrote:
> MySQL is an appalling database, but people use it, a lot! Why? Because
> they really market it. They push it. They craft deceptive benchmarks
> which show it is better. PostgreSQL doesn't even need to be deceptive.
>
> Furthermore, I think it woul
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
development group and, to some exten
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > OK, so what do we do with 7.3.1. Increment major or minor?
> >
> > Major. I thought you did it already?
>
> I did only minor, which I knew was safe. Do folks realize this will
> require recompile of appl
For live replication could I propose that we consider the systems A,B, and C
connected to each other independantly (i.e. A has links to B and C, B has
links to A and C, and C has links to A and B), and that replication is
handled by the node receiving the write based transaction.
If we consider a
> > I think in either way, it's clear that they need to be in the main CVS, in
> > order for it to get up to speed.
>
> Why's that?
Because until replication is in CVS, it won't be used, tested and improved
and developed as fast...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
Dear all,
Why not use libgda, Gnome-DB database provider, to be able to attach foreign
tables inside PostgreSQL. Would it be hard to achieve?
Many users are looking for such a solution to be able to query/update tables
outside PostgreSQL in Oracle, MS SQL Server, IBM DB2 or even MySQL databases
20 matches
Mail list logo
