Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, some kind of information "initdb required because column xxx was
dropped" would be helpful. When scanning the whole beta4-to-beta5 file,
you'd easily miss the consequence of the 2004-11-05 patch ("remove
concept of a schema having an
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, some kind of information "initdb required because column xxx was
> dropped" would be helpful. When scanning the whole beta4-to-beta5 file,
> you'd easily miss the consequence of the 2004-11-05 patch ("remove
> concept of a schema having an associa
Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 29 November 2004 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
don't we normally announce if initdb is required on new beta releases? We
should.
It was sloppy that we didn't do that for beta5, and I apologize for it.
One problem is that we don't have
On Monday 29 November 2004 23:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > don't we normally announce if initdb is required on new beta releases? We
> > should.
>
> It was sloppy that we didn't do that for beta5, and I apologize for it.
>
> One problem is that we don't have a
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> don't we normally announce if initdb is required on new beta releases? We
> should.
It was sloppy that we didn't do that for beta5, and I apologize for it.
One problem is that we don't have a defined place for per-beta-version
release notes. The curr
On Monday 29 November 2004 11:03, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>> Sorry Chris - obviously the pgAdmin team are just a bit crazier than
> >>> your lot :-)
> >>
> >> And a little faster fixing it :-)
> >
> > I didn't even see it go through. Which is weird because I normal
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Sorry Chris - obviously the pgAdmin team are just a bit crazier than
your lot :-)
And a little faster fixing it :-)
I didn't even see it go through. Which is weird because I normally
notice that kind of thing...
Same with us. It's probably the result of the 100+m
Sorry Chris - obviously the pgAdmin team are just a bit crazier than
your lot :-)
And a little faster fixing it :-)
I didn't even see it go through. Which is weird because I normally
notice that kind of thing...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher Kings-Lynne
Sent: Sun 11/28/2004 2:57 PM
To: Roland Volkmann
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Error: column "nsptablespace" does not exist
No other applications will be brok
Hello Christopher, Hello Tom,
thank you for your answers.
You are using a pre-release version of a database server, and
phpPgAdmin's behaviour has had to change _several_ times to track it.
Don't expect a pre-release to work in any way.
I know that PostgreSQL 8.0 isn't ready for use in productio
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Christopher Kings-Lynne
Sent: Sun 11/28/2004 2:57 PM
To: Roland Volkmann
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Error: column "nsptablespace" does not exist
> No other applications will be broken bec
with the new Beta5 you will receive an error ""column "nsptablespace"
does not exist"" on phpPgAdmin and EMS PostgreSQL-Manager. Perhaps there
will be some more applications around which are broken now.
What is the future in this area? Back to schema of Beta4, or must all
the utilities be porte
Roland Volkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with the new Beta5 you will receive an error ""column "nsptablespace"
> does not exist"" on phpPgAdmin and EMS PostgreSQL-Manager.
Yup. They need to be fixed.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
13 matches
Mail list logo
