"PostgreSQL Hackers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.4RC1 planned for Monday
> On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 23:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If we do a short cycle, will we have enough features to justify a
> > release?
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 23:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If we do a short cycle, will we have enough features to justify a
> release? We could try to get PITR and Win32 done by January 1 and see
> if that can happen.
It's worth noting that we've thought about doing "quick" major releases
in the past,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("scott.marlowe") writes:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
>> >much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
>> >would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
>
> >much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
> >would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum script can at
> >least be scheduled for low-
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
> >>
> >> > In the interests of d
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
> In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
> fails, almost certainly
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
> > or shortly afterwards?
>
> Check bruce's 7.5 patches list (can't remember the address though :) )
>
> I have this COMMENT ON thing ready to go, except for this darn taking in
> uns
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
>
> > In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
> > fails, almost certainly deferred
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
> In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
> fails, almost certainly deferred fk constraints will as well which I
> think make
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since improving the buffer cache policy will not change any "visible"
> functionality other than performance ... maybe you want to convince some
> people that if we find a substantial improvement for the cache policy
> soon to put it into a 7.4.x release.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Sooner or later you have to say "this release is done, let's ship it".
It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
very tempting.
Since improving the buffer cache policy will not change an
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
> > release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
> > vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
> > But there is no consensus on how to fix the int
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>2. More importantly the recent potential discovery by Jan on vacuum.
>
> I have several high end users that are really beating their heads
> against the wall with even lazy vacuum because of how brutal it can
> be on the system
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:51:24PM -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> > > Any chance of putting up a torrent for it? I'd be happy to
> > > host, but I'd have to get the link on the downloads page someh
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
> or shortly afterwards?
That brings up another question, which is when to create the
REL7_4_STABLE branch in CVS. Offhand I think it would be good to do it
when we make RC1;
Oh, sorry, only read your part --- I have not heard anything about PITR
from Patrick. I talked to him about a month ago and he hadn't made much
headway.
---
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> I meant related to PITR? :)
>
>
I meant related to PITR? :)
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >
> > > > Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
> > > > release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could pos
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > > Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
> > > release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
> > > vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it
Does anyone have anything ready to put into CVS as soon as we start v7.5,
or shortly afterwards?
Check bruce's 7.5 patches list (can't remember the address though :) )
I have this COMMENT ON thing ready to go, except for this darn taking in
unsigned ints from the parser business that I haven't h
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
>
> > Any chance of putting up a torrent for it? I'd be happy to host, but
> > I'd have to get the link on the downloads page somehow :)
>
> Put up a what ... ?
Google for "BitTorrent". It's a pretty dar
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
> > release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
> > vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
> > But there is no consens
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >Sooner or later you have to say "this release is done, let's ship it".
> >It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
> >
> >
> >
> I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
> very tempting.
> On the 7.5 cy
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:08:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Barring the discovery of any major new bugs, the core committee has
> > agreed to release 7.4RC1 on Monday. Time to get those last-minute
> > fixes in place.
> >
> > I currently have the f
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> rule/foreign key interaction reported by Michele Bendazzoli
In the interests of disclosure, if the case in question for the rule
fails, almost certainly deferred fk constraints will as well which I
think makes this a must fix for 7.4 and is another push to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:08:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Barring the discovery of any major new bugs, the core committee has
> agreed to release 7.4RC1 on Monday. Time to get those last-minute
> fixes in place.
>
> I currently have the following issues on my radar screen:
>
> Force GRANT/REV
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea of very short release cycle for 7.5 is interesting. What is
> the core's decision for point-in-time-recovery? Maybe the decision is
> 7.5 does not include point-in-time-recovery?
We'd like to have it in 7.5. Whether it will get done in time is
i
> Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
> release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
> vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about it prove out.
> But there is no consensus on how to fix the integer-index issues, and
> I'm
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a cron-driven vacuum script can at
least be scheduled for low-load times of day. autovacuum is likely to
kick in at the
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are these folks for whom the autovacuum daemon provides no relief?
If I understood correctly, Josh was complaining about VACUUM sucking too
much of his disk bandwidth. autovacuum wouldn't help that --- in fact
would likely make it worse, since a cron-
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
>I know I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this but I would
> like to make a suggestion about
> the upcoming release.
>
>What if we delayed until the end of the year?
>
>The two reasons that I can come up with are:
>
Sooner or later you have to say "this release is done, let's ship it".
It's way too late to go back into invention mode for 7.4.
I agree with the argument. It is just that the Vacuum one... well is
very tempting.
On the 7.5 cycle though... I thought 7.5 was basically for win32?
Sincerely,
Jo
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What if we delayed until the end of the year?
Nope, not for those items. There is still some thought of a very short
release cycle (a few months) for 7.5, and we could possibly address the
vacuum issue in that timeframe, if the recent ideas about
Hello,
I know I will probably be flamed into oblivion for this but I would
like to make a suggestion about
the upcoming release.
What if we delayed until the end of the year?
The two reasons that I can come up with are:
1. The irritating (but work around capable) bigint index issue.
--On Thursday, October 30, 2003 18:43:25 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Barring the discovery of any major new bugs, the core committee has
agreed to release 7.4RC1 on Monday. Time to get those last-minute
fixes in place.
I currently have the following issues on my radar screen:
Fo
Barring the discovery of any major new bugs, the core committee has
agreed to release 7.4RC1 on Monday. Time to get those last-minute
fixes in place.
I currently have the following issues on my radar screen:
Force GRANT/REVOKE by superuser to act as though owner of object?
Change libpgtcl to use
35 matches
Mail list logo
