Mailing lists [pgsql-hackers]

5 March 2012

• 00:54   Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work Robert Haas
• 01:55   Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement Alvaro Herrera
• 02:52   Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor) Tom Lane
• 02:55   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Brendan Jurd
• 05:24   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Robert Haas
• 07:25   Re: ECPG FETCH readahead Michael Meskes
• 07:32   Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) Heikki Linnakangas
• 08:21   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Shigeru Hanada
• 08:23   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Brendan Jurd
• 09:07   Re: autovacuum locks Gregg Jaskiewicz
• 09:20   Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) Simon Riggs
• 10:58   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Etsuro Fujita
• 11:03   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Etsuro Fujita
• 12:03   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Shigeru Hanada
• 12:25   Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) Andrew Dunstan
• 12:49   Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement Pavel Stehule
• 13:03   Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays Alexander Korotkov
• 13:35   Re: autovacuum locks Kevin Grittner
• 14:03   Checksums, state of play Simon Riggs
• 14:32   Re: xlog min recovery request ... is past current point ... Robert Haas
• 15:00   Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) Robert Haas
• 15:03   Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement Pavel Stehule
• 15:03   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Robert Haas
• 15:08   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Pavel Stehule
• 15:28   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Tom Lane
• 15:33   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Robert Haas
• 15:35   Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) Heikki Linnakangas
• 15:41   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Tom Lane
• 15:47   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Simon Riggs
• 15:50   Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) Heikki Linnakangas
• 16:08   Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) Tom Lane
• 16:17   Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) Tom Lane
• 16:24   Re: archive_keepalive_command Simon Riggs
• 16:28   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Robert Haas
• 16:42   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Simon Riggs
• 16:44   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Robert Haas
• 16:49   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Robert Haas
• 16:50   Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) Andrew Dunstan
• 16:57   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Robert Haas
• 16:58   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Tom Lane
• 17:00   Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) Robert Haas
• 17:02   Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work Tom Lane
• 17:03   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Pavel Stehule
• 17:12   Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement Alvaro Herrera
• 17:14   Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work Robert Haas
• 17:19   Re: Patch review for logging hooks (CF 2012-01) Tom Lane
• 17:27   Re: performance results on IBM POWER7 Robert Haas
• 17:29   Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt Simon Riggs
• 17:38   Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt Alvaro Herrera
• 17:50   Re: ECPG FETCH readahead Noah Misch
• 17:56   Re: ECPG FETCH readahead Noah Misch
• 18:19   elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Artur Litwinowicz
• 18:23   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Noah Misch
• 18:34   Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt Simon Riggs
• 18:46   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Fabrízio de Royes Mello
• 18:54   Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt Alvaro Herrera
• 18:57   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Alvaro Herrera
• 19:03   Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? Pavel Stehule
• 19:06   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Martijn van Oosterhout
• 19:11   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Simon Riggs
• 19:18   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Pavel Stehule
• 19:30   Re: Our regex vs. POSIX on "longest match" Tom Lane
• 19:35   Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt Simon Riggs
• 19:42   Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 Dimitri Fontaine
• 19:46   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Robert Haas
• 19:54   Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" Simon Riggs
• 20:00   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Artur Litwinowicz
• 20:10   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Pavel Stehule
• 20:11   Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 Andres Freund
• 20:17   Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 Robert Haas
• 20:20   Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server Tom Lane
• 20:33   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Artur Litwinowicz
• 20:34   Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 Thom Brown
• 20:41   CLUSTER VERBOSE (9.1.3) Larry Rosenman
• 20:44   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Alvaro Herrera
• 21:03   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Artur Litwinowicz
• 21:10   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Jaime Casanova
• 21:21   Re: performance-test farm Tomas Vondra
• 21:30   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Artur Litwinowicz
• 21:56   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Christopher Browne
• 21:58   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database Daniel Farina
• 22:09   Re: WIP: URI connection string support for libpq Peter Eisentraut
• 22:14   Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database David Johnston
• 22:30   Re: Checksums, state of play Josh Berkus
• 23:37   Dropping PL language retains support functions Bruce Momjian