On Aug 8, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 8/8/09 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition
doesn't
leave me
Josh Berkus writes:
> Given that the FSM is now auto-managing, is there any reason to have
> this tool at all?
Maybe not, but I'd be inclined to wait a release or so until we have
more field experience with the new FSM. If, in a year, FSM is something
nobody worries about anymore, we can kill th
On 8/8/09 10:50 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>>> Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
>>> contrib to core?
>> Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
>> leave me feeling that it's more than a low-l
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
> > contrib to core?
>
> Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
> leave me feeling that it's more than a low-level hacker's tool.
No specific reason. I
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
> contrib to core?
Is there a reason we *should* move it? The current definition doesn't
leave me feeling that it's more than a low-level hacker's tool.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
Hi,
Is there any reason we didn't move the pg_freespace function from
contrib to core?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chan
