Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-04-04 Thread Josh Berkus
Tatsuo, > I'm wondering if this was approved or not... We haven't approved *anything* yet. The deadline was just Saturday, and I'm still keying stuff into the conference management system. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-20 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 12:38:30PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: > One example might be a 'self-aggregating' structure. Start with one > entry per minute in a table indexed by time. After 2 weeks passes, the > per-minute data is aggregated and the single entry at the start of the > day is updated with t

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-19 Thread Qingqing Zhou
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > Hm, I already talked about that once: > http://www.postgresql.org/files/developer/transactions.pdf > but perhaps that's not the level of detail you are after? > Yeah, I've read the presentation -- and yes, that's not the level I am after. Actually, I guess

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Qingqing Zhou wrote: > I am really interested in the concurrency control part of the PostgreSQL. I > can see the MVCC/lock rules there, and basically I can follow them -- but > there are so many if-else in the rules, so the problem always for me is: how > can we gaurantee that the rules are comple

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-18 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2006-03-18 kell 12:38, kirjutas Rod Taylor: > This will, presumably, be a very PostgreSQL friendly group so a sales > pitch isn't really required. > > How about the opposite? Tom Lanes list of areas that PostgreSQL does a > poor job and a detailed explanation as to how that

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-18 Thread Rod Taylor
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 22:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: > > -- There are only 13 days left to submit a proposal. Please do so. We'd > > rather not be forced into a last-minute rush to evaluate all of the stuff > > in April. Remember this is a "family" event so you don't have

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-18 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: "Josh Berkus" Sent: 18/03/06 01:55:04 To: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update > Heck, if you have > an idea for a talk you'd really, really, really like

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-17 Thread Tom Lane
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> What would people like to hear about? > I am really interested in the concurrency control part of the PostgreSQL. Hm, I already talked about that once: http://www.postgresql.org/files/developer/transactions.pdf

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-17 Thread Qingqing Zhou
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > What would people like to hear about? > I am really interested in the concurrency control part of the PostgreSQL. I can see the MVCC/lock rules there, and basically I can follow them -- but there are so many if-else in the rules, so the problem always for

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Anniversary Proposals -- Important Update

2006-03-17 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus writes: > -- There are only 13 days left to submit a proposal. Please do so. We'd > rather not be forced into a last-minute rush to evaluate all of the stuff > in April. Remember this is a "family" event so you don't have to have all > of your materials together before you send s