Mailing lists [pgsql-hackers]

14 March 2005

• 00:27   Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations Simon Riggs
• 00:37   Re: Bumping libpq version number? Andrew - Supernews
• 02:28   materialized views Oleg Bartunov
• 02:54   Re: date_trunc problem in HEAD Kurt Roeckx
• 03:08   Re: [PERFORM] How to read query plan Tom Lane
• 05:08   Null Value Stored for Date e TimeStamp Fernando Ferreira
• 05:08   where is the locale set for each server instance? Palle Girgensohn
• 05:09   Re: Bumping libpq version number? Kurt Roeckx
• 05:09   Re: Bumping libpq version number? Kurt Roeckx
• 05:09   Re: Bumping libpq version number? Kurt Roeckx
• 05:09   Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Terry Yapt
• 05:09   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY Mark Shewmaker
• 05:10   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without Gary Doades
• 05:10   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP John R Pierce
• 05:11   Grant ALL on schema Hemapriya
• 05:11   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY Gill, Jerry T.
• 05:11   Re: [ADMIN] Too frequent warnings for wraparound failure Milen A. Radev
• 05:12   Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY Michael Wimmer
• 05:12   Re: One vacuum full is not enough. Gaetano Mendola
• 05:12   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Mark Shewmaker
• 05:13   Re: One vacuum full is not enough. Christopher Browne
• 05:13   Re: A bad plan Gaetano Mendola
• 06:01   Re: TODO item: support triggers on columns Bruce Momjian
• 07:24   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Greg Stark
• 07:41   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Bruno Wolff III
• 08:00   Re: [PERFORM] How to read query plan Tom Lane
• 08:09   Re: date_trunc problem in HEAD Robert Creager
• 08:26   signed short fd Qingqing Zhou
• 08:35   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Greg Stark
• 08:56   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Bruno Wolff III
• 08:57   Re: Null Value Stored for Date e TimeStamp Tom Lane
• 09:20   invalidating cached plans Neil Conway
• 09:49   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Tom Lane
• 09:53   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Tom Lane
• 10:06   Re: signed short fd Tom Lane
• 10:12   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Bruno Wolff III
• 10:26   Re: invalidating cached plans Tom Lane
• 10:30   options in conninfo Christopher Kings-Lynne
• 10:36   Re: invalidating cached plans Neil Conway
• 10:47   Re: int64/double for time/timestamp Thomas Hallgren
• 10:53   Re: invalidating cached plans Tom Lane
• 11:02   Re: options in conninfo Tom Lane
• 11:03   Re: options in conninfo Christopher Kings-Lynne
• 11:04   Re: int64/double for time/timestamp Tom Lane
• 11:10   Re: options in conninfo Tom Lane
• 12:13   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Greg Stark
• 15:36   Re: signed short fd pgsql@mohawksoft.com
• 15:38   Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Manfred Koizar
• 15:59   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without Dennis Bjorklund
• 16:13   Re: Raw size Hannu Krosing
• 18:03   Re: [PERFORM] How to read query plan Tom Lane
• 18:04   Re: [PERFORM] How to read query plan Tom Lane
• 18:09   Re: signed short fd Tom Lane
• 18:49   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Greg Stark
• 18:59   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without Dennis Bjorklund
• 19:37   Re: signed short fd pgsql@mohawksoft.com
• 19:51   Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP Greg Stark
• 19:57   Re: signed short fd Tom Lane
• 20:02   Re: invalidating cached plans Michael Adler
• 20:24   Avoiding tuple construction/deconstruction during joining Tom Lane
• 20:38   Re: invalidating cached plans Greg Stark
• 21:55   Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests Bruce Momjian
• 22:19   Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail Tom Lane
• 22:22   Re: Avoiding tuple construction/deconstruction during joining Tom Lane
• 22:39   Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests Bruce Momjian
• 22:41   Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests to fail Tom Lane
• 23:21   Re: signed short fd pgsql@mohawksoft.com