On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:20 AM, MauMau wrote:
> eFrom: "Tom Lane"
>
> After some discussion, the core committee has concluded that the
>> WAL-replay bug fixed in commit 6bfa88acd3df830a5f7e8677c13512b1b50ae813
>> is indeed bad enough to justify near-term update releases. Since
>> there seems
eFrom: "Tom Lane"
After some discussion, the core committee has concluded that the
WAL-replay bug fixed in commit 6bfa88acd3df830a5f7e8677c13512b1b50ae813
is indeed bad enough to justify near-term update releases. Since
there seems no point in being slow about it, tarballs will be wrapped
Monda
Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2012-11-26 17:27:11 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund
> > wrote:
> > > I have submitted a proposed fix for it friday:
> > >
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121124155005.GA10299%40awork2.anarazel.de
> >
On 2012-11-26 17:27:11 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2012-11-26 21:35:05 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>
> >> > We're about due for a new set of back-branch update releases. Aft
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2012-11-26 21:35:05 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> > We're about due for a new set of back-branch update releases. After
>> > some discussion among the packagers, it seems the best
On 2012-11-26 21:35:05 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > We're about due for a new set of back-branch update releases. After
> > some discussion among the packagers, it seems the best window for
> > getting this done before the holiday season se
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We're about due for a new set of back-branch update releases. After
> some discussion among the packagers, it seems the best window for
> getting this done before the holiday season sets in is next week.
>
> Also, as previously mentioned, we're
Tom Lane wrote:
The core committee has agreed that we need to do a set of releases
in the back branches soon --- certainly 8.0 has accumulated a critical
mass of changes since 8.0.3, and probably there's enough to justify
updates of the 7.* branches too. We hope to get these out sometime
next
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:06:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So, if you've got any pending patches for the back branches, now would
> be a good time to get 'em done up and sent in.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-07/msg00291.php
--
marko
---(end of br
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'd vote to get rid of it ... the concept of 'registering' might throw
some for a loop ...
Works for me; will do that in the 7.3 and 7.2 branches.
It'd still be a good idea to put in some redirects to make th
I'd vote to get rid of it ... the concept of 'registering' might throw
some for a loop ...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
I installed 7.3.10 from source the other day, and noticed that at the end
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd vote to get rid of it ... the concept of 'registering' might throw
> some for a loop ...
Works for me; will do that in the 7.3 and 7.2 branches.
It'd still be a good idea to put in some redirects to make those old
URLs do something again.
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
>> I installed 7.3.10 from source the other day, and noticed that at the end of
>> initdb it told me I could register my install and check out the mailing
>> lists, both a 404'd web pages. Does anyone think we
My recollection is that that change was way too invasive to be
reasonable for a back-port. The solutions used for circular reference
situations (various ALTER commands) probably don't exist very far back
anyway.
Nah, all you need to do is take the 8.0 pg_dump, hard-code that
--use-set-session-
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any call to backport the pg_dump object sorting improvements?
My recollection is that that change was way too invasive to be
reasonable for a back-port. The solutions used for circular reference
situations (various ALTER commands) pro
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
On Monday 15 August 2005 13:06, Tom Lane wrote:
The core committee has agreed that we need to do a set of releases
in the back branches soon --- certainly 8.0 has accumulated a critical
mass of changes since 8.0.3, and probably there's enough to justify
The core committee has agreed that we need to do a set of releases
in the back branches soon --- certainly 8.0 has accumulated a critical
mass of changes since 8.0.3, and probably there's enough to justify
updates of the 7.* branches too. We hope to get these out sometime
next week, after the fir
Robert Treat wrote:
I installed 7.3.10 from source the other day, and noticed that at the end of
initdb it told me I could register my install and check out the mailing
lists, both a 404'd web pages. Does anyone think we should update these older
versions with more current information?
On Monday 15 August 2005 13:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> The core committee has agreed that we need to do a set of releases
> in the back branches soon --- certainly 8.0 has accumulated a critical
> mass of changes since 8.0.3, and probably there's enough to justify
> updates of the 7.* branches too. We
19 matches
Mail list logo
