On 03/31/2015 09:19 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 10:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-31 10:49:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that poi
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
>>> very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
>>> the trouble anymore. If someone has runs into that issue frequen
On 03/31/2015 11:05 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I have no intention to backpatch the changes. Too big, too invasive.
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
the trouble anymore. If someone has runs in
On 03/31/2015 10:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
the trouble anymore. If someone has runs into that iss
On 03/31/2015 10:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-31 10:49:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
the t
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/30/2015 09:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake
>> wrote:
>>> We have a database that has run into this problem. The version is
>>> 9.1.15 on
>>> Linux. I note in this thread:
>>>
>>> http://www.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
>> very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
>> the trouble anymore. If someone has runs into that issue frequently, he
>> probably should ju
On 2015-03-31 10:49:06 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >Perhaps we could consider it after a year or two, once 9.4 is indeed
> >very stable, but at that point you have to wonder if it's really worth
> >the trouble anymore. If someone has runs into
On 03/31/2015 04:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I believe that Heikki said he'd backpatch that when 9.4 was considered
very stable. I don't think that we've reached that level of confidence
in the invasive B-Tree bugfixes that went into 9.4 yet.
I have no intention to backpatch the changes.
On 03/30/2015 09:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
We have a database that has run into this problem. The version is 9.1.15 on
Linux. I note in this thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam-w4hp34ppwegtcwjbznwhq0cmu-lxna62vjku8qrtwlob
Hello,
Just wondering if what Peter said was the last word on this?
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own e
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> We have a database that has run into this problem. The version is 9.1.15 on
> Linux. I note in this thread:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam-w4hp34ppwegtcwjbznwhq0cmu-lxna62vjku8qrtwlob...@mail.gmail.com
>
> That things appear t
Hello,
We have a database that has run into this problem. The version is 9.1.15
on Linux. I note in this thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam-w4hp34ppwegtcwjbznwhq0cmu-lxna62vjku8qrtwlob...@mail.gmail.com
That things appear to be fixed in 9.4 but they have not been
back-patched?
13 matches
Mail list logo
