> "Shridhar" == Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shridhar> On Saturday 04 January 2003 03:20 am, you wrote:
>> >I am sure, many of you would like to delete this message
>> before reading, > hold on. :-)
>>
>> I'm afraid most posters did not read the message.
On Saturday 04 January 2003 03:20 am, you wrote:
> >I am sure, many of you would like to delete this message before reading,
> > hold on. :-)
>
> I'm afraid most posters did not read the message. Those who replied
>
> "Why bother?" did not address your challenge:
Our challenges may be..;-)
Anyw
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:32, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Not even close ... in fact, most of the banners there are in recognition
> of those companies who themselves have provided invaluable resources for
> the project by providing mirror sites, to reduce the overall traffic hits
> on the central ser
The IPv6 patch currently checks for the function getaddrinfo() and the
include file netinet/ip6.h.
Is this a sufficient test? Anyone with/without IPv6 that does match
not this test?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 3
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
> *not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
> supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
> required on the central server .
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in
>> src/backend/lib ?
Tom> Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we
Tom> ditched them both ..
On Sunday 05 January 2003 23:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is very possible that the supporting libc shared libraries
> > will be removed by the OS upgrade -- the old binaries may not even run
> > when it is critical that they do run.
> Urgh, that's a mess.
Y
Sailesh Krishnamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in
> src/backend/lib ?
Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we ditched them both
... AFAICT none of the bit.c routines are used anymore.
regards, t
I have a small nit
Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in
src/backend/lib ?
I can never for the life of me remember which is in which :-)
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is very possible that the supporting libc shared libraries
> will be removed by the OS upgrade -- the old binaries may not even run when
> it is critical that they do run.
Urgh, that's a mess.
> If I can get older versions building again on newer syst
On Saturday 04 January 2003 21:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I would recommend requiring users to do the schema dump before upgrading
> the binaries, so they'd do
Nice theory. Won't work in RPM practice. I can't require the user to do
_anything_. Due to the rules of RPM's, I can't even ask the
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... On top of that, that's also the risk of someone being a
>> superuser. They will ALWAYS have the power to hose things. Period. As
>> such, I don't consider that to be a valid argument.
> That was my feeling too. If you can't trust the other admi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No problem, go ahead. I put it there only because I needed it for some
> of the prototypes, and I didn't want to be so bold as to move it even
> farther up into the include system,
Properly so --- but if the consequence is to have to include miscadmin.h
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd like to move the typedef for AclId out of miscadmin.h, where it was
> originally placed, and into postgres.h or c.h where most other fundamental
> typedefs appear. As is, we've got a problem with miscadmin.h having
> to be included into many header files where it doesn't belo
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> VACUUM FREEZE. Interesting idea. Did we have that in 7.2? I never
> thought of using it. Good idea.
IIRC, it was new in 7.2 --- but pg_upgrade goes back further than that.
I am not sure if this idea just escaped us before, or if there's a hole
in it.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, taking up the pg_upgrade banner, I think there are two things
> > missing from the current code:
>
> > 1) schema awareness -- easily fixed with some code
> > 2) need to creat clog files to match incremented xid
>
> > I can do 1,
Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> > You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
> > super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just
> > as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.
> >
> > BTW:
> >
> > $ postmas
mlw wrote:
> I have the USA tiger census data in a database, it is over 60G with
> indexes, 30G+ of just data. Do you know how long that will take to dump
> and restore? Making one index on some of the tables takes 20 minutes.
Oh, come on. How many tigers are their in the USA? Certainly not 30
On 5 Jan 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> Obviously, but it's VERY unprofessional for us to show ads to users on
> our website. It goes without saying, but pretty much every other
> non-trivial OSS project doesn't have ads on their main website.
> Displaying ads makes us look more like a Geocities site
Patch applied. I added a small mention of IPv6 addresses to the
pg_hba.conf documentation. Not sure where else to mention it.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have been working on a patch to implement IPv6 connections. A work
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > > > There were always ads there
> > >
> > > Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
> > > (furthermore, the old site only had a
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > > There were always ads there
> >
> > Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
> > (furthermore, the old site only had ads on the initial mirror page,
> > where
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > There were always ads there
>
> Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
> (furthermore, the old site only had ads on the initial mirror page,
> whereas they are much more widespread on the new site).
>
>
This is an interesting paper on how a database can evolve its schema to fit
its app. From SlashDot:
http://martinfowler.com/articles/evodb.html
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> >> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> >> be paid for s
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Anagh Lal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am trying to test a new join algorithm by implementing it on
>> Postgresql. It would be great if you could give me some start
>> off pointers so as to where all in the source code I
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
>> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
>> be paid for somehow.
> Granted. I'm just trying to point ou
Anagh Lal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to test a new join algorithm by
> implementing it on Postgresql.
> It would be great if you could give me some start off
> pointers so as to where all in the source code I will
> have to make changes.
Lots of places ;-).
You will find that a fu
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> be paid for somehow. Purely speculation, but I would guess that the ads
> are not recouping all of the cash it co
I'd like to move the typedef for AclId out of miscadmin.h, where it was
originally placed, and into postgres.h or c.h where most other fundamental
typedefs appear. As is, we've got a problem with miscadmin.h having
to be included into many header files where it doesn't belong, and that
problem is
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> be paid for somehow.
Granted. I'm just trying to point out that putting ads on our webspace
is a pretty
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 22:38
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > There were
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > There were always ads there
>
> Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
Not sure where you heard this from ... there were some site that still
hadn't had them deployed on them, but th
On 5 Jan 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > There were always ads there
>
> Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
> (furthermore, the old site only had ads on the initial mirror page,
> whereas they are much more widespread on the
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> There were always ads there
Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased out
(furthermore, the old site only had ads on the initial mirror page,
whereas they are much more widespread on the new site).
> they help pay for the boxes.
Ob
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 22:03
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 19:40, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > I'm just announ
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 19:40, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> I'm just announcing here, since I'd like to see some ppl testing this out
> and let us know if there are any problems
Why are there ads on the page?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
---
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 21:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Rod Taylor; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > Umm, Marc? Is
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 21:03
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [webmaster] [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS
> switched ...
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> AFAICT none of the www mirrors have updated yet; that's starting to
> >> seem suspicious.
>
> > the www mirrors don't update from the portal,they update from what is no
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> Umm, Marc? Is that a mnogo search.cgi? What do you want to do about it -
> move it or lose it?
Move it, but its going to require some fixing up ... let's disable it for
now and re-enable it once we've had some time to get it back in order?
-
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 05 January 2003 20:34
> > To: Marc G. Fournier
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
> >
> >
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
> Two thoughts:
>
> Are there any plans to 'strip' the users lounge of duplicated
> information? (outdated news, various links, etc.).
Yes ...
> Will advocacy, gborg, archives, techdocs, etc. be updated to include
> links back to the portal site?
Yes ...
> > Will advocacy, gborg, archives, techdocs, etc. be updated to
> > include links back to the portal site?
>
> Don't they already?
If they do, it's not obvious. I don't see anything on archives,
advocacy, or gborg. It looks like techdocs goes to the users lounge
(PostgreSQL Home).
--
Rod Ta
> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 20:42
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> Are there any plans to 'strip' the users lounge o
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 20:34
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom
Two thoughts:
Are there any plans to 'strip' the users lounge of duplicated
information? (outdated news, various links, etc.).
Will advocacy, gborg, archives, techdocs, etc. be updated to include
links back to the portal site?
BTW, the 'Users Lounge' search link is broken.
http://www.postgresq
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT none of the www mirrors have updated yet; that's starting to
>> seem suspicious.
> the www mirrors don't update from the portal,they update from what is now
> the users-lounge area ...
But they aren't.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT none of the www mirrors have updated yet; that's starting to
> seem suspicious.
the www mirrors don't update from the portal,they update from what is now
the users-lounge area ... the portal itself isn't meant to be mirrors, as
its pretty much complete
AFAICT none of the www mirrors have updated yet; that's starting to
seem suspicious.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Hi Marc,
Just tested it! it seemes that the address for the french flag is wrong:
http://www.fr.postgresql.org/www.postgresql.org instead of just
www.fr.postgresql.org.
Regards,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 01:51:58 + (UTC)
> From: Marc G. Fournier <[EM
Hi,
I am trying to test a new join algorithm by
implementing it on Postgresql.
It would be great if you could give me some start off
pointers so as to where all in the source code I will
have to make changes. (I figure that I need to make
executor nodes, so i might need to write nodeNewjoin.c
etc
Looks like your firewall needs to allow TCP/53 connections from me as well.
I'm getting RST's.
(BTW, TCP/53 can be used for large queries, so it should be allowed
globally).
LER
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:59:42 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003,
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:59:42 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:52:11 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any volunteers to act as a tertiary? :)
Sure, I have 2 NS's on
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:52:11 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Any volunteers to act as a tertiary? :)
> Sure, I have 2 NS's on my network with good upstream connectivity (UUNET,
> SPRINT,
> GENUITY, C&W, SAVVI
> -Original Message-
> From: mlw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 16:36
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Tom Lane; Hannu Krosing; Lamar Owen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading rant.
>
> (2) Upgrade HAS HAS HAS to be fool proof.
Agreed.
> No one is going t
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:52:11 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any volunteers to act as a tertiary? :)
Sure, I have 2 NS's on my network with good upstream connectivity (UUNET,
SPRINT,
GENUITY, C&W, SAVVIS).
(207.158.72.11/207.158.72.45).
Let me know what the pr
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 01:10
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dan Langille; Peter Eisentraut; Greg Copeland; Bruce
> Momjian; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] v7.3.1 Bundled and Released ...
Any volunteers to act as a tertiary? :)
We're actually working on adding a new server online that is offshore,
which will also give us another subnet to work off of ... but having a
third-party secondary server wouldn't hurt, you are right ...
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ---
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Clift [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 13:22
> To: Peter Mount
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> Peter Mount wrote:
> >
> > However, the bugs link on the
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Mount [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 January 2003 12:28
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm just announ
Bruce Momjian wrote:
pg_upgrade does work, assuming there are no changes to the index or heap
file formats. (However, I now need to update it for schemas.) However,
the last time I worked on it for 7.2, no one was really interested in
testing it, so it never got done. In fact, there was a bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Speaking of DNS, we should probably not put all of our eggs
in one basket (subnet):
$ whois postgresql.org
> ...
> Domain servers in listed order:
>
> NS.HUB.ORG 64.49.215.5
> NS2.HUB.ORG 64.49.215.6
It wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well, a tag makes it feasible for someone else to recreate the tarball,
> given access to the CVS server. Dunno how important that is in the real
> world --- but I have seen requests before for us to tag release points.
>
> Any other arguments out
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 06:41, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
>
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
> super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just
> as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.
>
> BTW:
>
> $ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connec
Peter Mount wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I'm just announcing here, since I'd like to see some ppl testing this out
and let us know if there are any problems ... DNS is going to take a
little while to propogate, so the old site may still come up in the
interium ... another
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I never considered tag'ng for minor releases as having any importance,
> > since the tarball's themselves provide the 'tag' ... branches give us the
> > ability to back-patch, but tag's don't provide us anythi
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> I'm just announcing here, since I'd like to see some ppl testing this out
> and let us know if there are any problems ... DNS is going to take a
> little while to propogate, so the old site may still come up in the
> interium ... another reason not
"Reggie Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, that adds some clarity. Have base types (int32, etc) had the same
> oid values for a significant number of versions of PgSQL? What I am
> getting at is this: can I hard code oid values into an access layer for
> PgSQL?
AFAIK, we have never renu
70 matches
Mail list logo
