On Wednesday 25 March 2009 23:55:06 Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> That was 6 months ago. I doubt anyone remembers it. Make another
> >> announcement, so that when people get the "unsubscribed" announcement,
> >> they're not confused.
> >
> > Done.
>
> BTW,
Please clarify what you want done on the majordomo side ... I saw one
comment about unsub'ng everyone ... for archive purposes, this makes
sense, I just want to make sure before I blow them all away (and I will
unsubscribe them without having a blast of emails go out to them)
I will als
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> That was 6 months ago. I doubt anyone remembers it. Make another
>> announcement, so that when people get the "unsubscribed" announcement,
>> they're not confused.
> Done.
BTW, what was the reason we didn't pull the trigger before, when we
ret
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/25/09 12:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2008-07/msg2.php
>
> That was 6 months ago. I doubt anyone remembers it. Make another
> announcement, so that when people get the "unsubscribed" announcement,
> they're not
On 3/25/09 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
It does look like -interfaces is dying: almost no traffic, and what
questions it does get are off-topic more often than not. Partly this
is because the -jdbc, -odbc, and -php lists suck away all the traffic
about
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/25/09 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> As for actually shutting it down in Majordomo, Marc is the man.
>>
>
> Might want to make an announcement on that list first.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2008-07/msg2.php
--
Alvaro Herrera
On 3/25/09 12:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 3/25/09 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
As for actually shutting it down in Majordomo, Marc is the man.
Might want to make an announcement on that list first.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-interfaces/2008-07/msg2.p
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It does look like -interfaces is dying: almost no traffic, and what
>> questions it does get are off-topic more often than not. Partly this
>> is because the -jdbc, -odbc, and -php lists suck away all the traffic
>> about those interfaces, leaving not m
Tom Lane wrote:
It does look like -interfaces is dying: almost no traffic, and what
questions it does get are off-topic more often than not. Partly this
is because the -jdbc, -odbc, and -php lists suck away all the traffic
about those interfaces, leaving not much. So we could kill -interfaces
w
Tom,
The other global lists seem to be in good health from what I can see.
Can't speak to the regional or user-group lists, I don't follow them.
Those have specific reasons to survive regardless of traffic level.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
T
Josh Berkus writes:
> I'm not sure about -interfaces, but -performance, -sql, -jdbc and others
> definitely have specific audiences and themes which they are already
> handling a *lot* of traffic for.
It does look like -interfaces is dying: almost no traffic, and what
questions it does get are
Personally I'm of the opinion we should eliminate most of these
duplicative mailing lists like -performance and -interfaces and just
use -general. I don't see that having multiple lists for user
questions helps either the users or the answerers due to just this
type of problem.
... and instead
Thanks ! Now, it works fine.
Greg Stark wrote:
> Personally I'm of the opinion we should eliminate most of these
> duplicative mailing lists like -performance and -interfaces and just
> use -general. I don't see that having multiple lists for user
> questions helps either the users or th
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Personally I'm of the opinion we should eliminate most of these
> duplicative mailing lists like -performance and -interfaces and just
> use -general. I don't see that having multiple lists for user
> questions helps either the users or the answ
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Ben Ali Rachid wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I posted my problem (on pgsql-interfaces list) about the INOUT parameters on
> PostgreSQL 8.3.6 (Win32), but without success. I re-post my question here,
> while hoping to have more success.
Personally I'm of the opinion we shoul
Ben Ali Rachid writes:
> I posted my problem (on pgsql-interfaces list) about the INOUT parameters on
> PostgreSQL 8.3.6 (Win32), but without success. I re-post my question here,
> while hoping to have more success.
You apparently have no understanding at all of how parameters are passed
to and
Hello,
I posted my problem (on pgsql-interfaces list) about the INOUT parameters on
PostgreSQL 8.3.6 (Win32), but without success. I re-post my question here,
while hoping to have more success.
When I use a function with one INOUT (or OUT) parameter like below, everyting
is OK.
CREATE OR REP
17 matches
Mail list logo
