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 :(
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 |