Mailing lists [pgsql-hackers]

7 July 2005

• 01:02   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 01:10   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 01:16   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruno Wolff III
• 01:25   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 01:29   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 01:41   Re: Mistake in latest plperl patch Bruce Momjian
• 02:05   Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes Mark Wong
• 04:28   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Simon Riggs
• 04:31   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Simon Riggs
• 04:54   A couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support Koichi Suzuki
• 07:05   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
• 07:12   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
• 10:31   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 10:38   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 10:55   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
• 11:30   windows regression failure - prepared xacts Andrew Dunstan
• 12:03   SQL99 - Nested Tables Darren Alcorn
• 12:03   Re: [INTERFACES] By Passed Domain Constraints Robert Perry
• 12:15   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 12:18   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 12:28   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 12:32   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Greg Stark
• 12:36   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 12:40   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 12:51   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Tom Lane
• 13:00   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 13:08   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Joshua D. Drake
• 13:11   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 13:23   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Bruce Momjian
• 13:40   Must be owner to truncate? Stephen Frost
• 13:52   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables Josh Berkus
• 13:57   Re: A couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support Josh Berkus
• 13:59   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Josh Berkus
• 14:49   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Tom Lane
• 15:02   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Stephen Frost
• 15:17   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables David Fetter
• 15:52   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Andrew - Supernews
• 16:25   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables Darren Alcorn
• 16:25   Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC Kenneth Marshall
• 16:30   8.1dev ssl broke? Joshua D. Drake
• 16:36   Re: 8.1dev ssl broke? Joshua D. Drake
• 16:51   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables Josh Berkus
• 17:10   Re: 8.1dev ssl broke? Michael Fuhr
• 17:21   Re: 8.1dev ssl broke? Joshua D. Drake
• 17:33    Ayush Parashar
• 17:44   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Jim C. Nasby
• 17:56   Multi-byte and client side character encoding tests for copy command.. Ayush Parashar
• 17:58   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Stephen Frost
• 18:27   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Stephen Frost
• 19:59   Pg_autovacuum on FreeBSD Rodrigo Moreno
• 20:09   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables David Fetter
• 20:17   temp_buffers Joshua D. Drake
• 20:24   Re: temp_buffers Alvaro Herrera
• 21:12   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables Josh Berkus
• 21:22   Re: SQL99 - Nested Tables David Fetter
• 22:15   Re: Pg_autovacuum on FreeBSD Mark Kirkwood
• 23:18   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Christopher Kings-Lynne
• 23:20   Re: Must be owner to truncate? Christopher Kings-Lynne
• 23:23   Re: Pg_autovacuum on FreeBSD Christopher Kings-Lynne
• 23:46   Hmmm 8.1 pg_dumpall cannot dump older db's? Christopher Kings-Lynne