On 7/28/15 9:20 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I think that we can eventually downgrade or remove the message
> once (1) we've actually fixed all of the known multixact bugs and (2)
> a couple of years have gone by and most people are in the clear.
Fair enough. But we should document this better
On 28 July 2015 at 14:20, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> > On 22 July 2015 at 21:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> >> would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 July 2015 at 21:45, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
>> would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
>> enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you see the m
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 07:59:40AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 July 2015 at 20:15, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:14:09PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought
On 26 July 2015 at 20:15, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:14:09PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> > > would be better to be explicit about whether the protection
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:14:09PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> > would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
> > enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you
On 22 July 2015 at 21:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
> enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you see the message saying
> they are enabled, they are enabled; (2)
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
>> would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
>> enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you see the mes
On 7/22/15 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But it seemed to me that this could be rather confusing. I thought it
> would be better to be explicit about whether the protections are
> enabled in all cases. That way, (1) if you see the message saying
> they are enabled, they are enabled; (2) if you se
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Why is this message logged by default in a fresh installation? The
> technicality of that message doesn't seem to match the kinds of messages
> that we normally print at startup.
It seems nobody likes that message.
I did it that way bec
Why is this message logged by default in a fresh installation? The
technicality of that message doesn't seem to match the kinds of messages
that we normally print at startup.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.p
11 matches
Mail list logo
