Re: RC1 time?

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RC1 time?
Date: 2002-01-05 06:47:50
Message-ID: 20020105014646.B42799-100000@earth.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
>
> > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied. Was
> > there another issue?
>
> Yes. He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date. Thomas thought it
> might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> 7.1 to 7.2. See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
>
> (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> awful lot of traffic? For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> being its only omission lately.)

We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
512Meg just doesn't cut it :(

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2002-01-05 06:49:49 Re: RC1 time?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-05 06:08:39 Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks