| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "A(dot)Bhuvaneswaran" <bhuvanbk(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Heads up: 7.3.3 this Wednesday |
| Date: | 2003-05-20 16:08:07 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305201007430.20961-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > I'd be glad to test it, but we don't have any issues with fk deadlocks
> > since our load is 99% read, 1% write, and most of the tables with fks on
> > them only have a handful of writers, so any testing I would do would
> > probably just be the "we used it in production and it didn't die" kind of
> > testing.
>
> That's what I'm looking for mostly: that it does not have any adverse
> side-effects.
So where's that patch again? The search function of the mail archives is
broken, so I can't seem to find it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-20 17:04:43 | Heads up: 7.3.3 this, er, Friday |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-20 15:54:11 | Re: Heads up: 7.3.3 this Wednesday |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-20 17:04:43 | Heads up: 7.3.3 this, er, Friday |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-20 15:54:11 | Re: Heads up: 7.3.3 this Wednesday |