On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>> >> >> Yes, same random number generation is not the problem. In windows
>> >> >> apart
>> >> >> from EEXIST error, EACCES als
On 5/13/16 5:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If we do decide to change the numbering strategy, there are quite a
few small details that probably ought to be fixed while we're at it.
I think it'd be a good idea to start separating "devel" or "betaN"
with a dot, for instance, like "10.devel" not "10devel".
On 4/29/16 10:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables
without pg_upgrade or other modification).
Technically, this is exactly what pg_upgrade does. I think what you
really mean is for the backend binary to be able to read the syste
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Seltenreich
wrote:
> Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
>
>> Latest information from ISP RAS guys: them have made good progress
>> since February: them have rewritten most of methods of Scan, Aggregate
>> and Join to LLVM API.
>
> Is their work available somewher
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's a good idea to run a force-parallel run on some buildfarm
> members. But I'm rather convinced that the core tests run by all animals
> need some minimal coverage of parallel queries. Both because otherwise
> it'll be hard to get s
On 15/05/16 14:42, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
mailto:a...@8kdata.com>> wrote:
On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote:
+1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc.
It will hopefully both end these dis
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
wrote:
>
>
> On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>> +1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc.
>>
>> It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the confusion the
>> current versioning scheme has (I too hea
On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote:
+1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc.
It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the confusion
the current versioning scheme has (I too heard way to many times about
people using postgres8 or postgres9).
Even wors
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes:
>> I think moving to a two-number format is a mistake: what exactly will
>> PQserverVersion() return in that case?
>
> For, say, 10.2 it would be 12, equivalent to 10.0.2 under old style.
>
> We could redefine i
