Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Date: 1999-08-25 14:55:32
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.10.9908251145370.86612-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> > The reason for the tag as to be able to return to the 6.5 release source
> > code. It's production code, and should be accessible at least for the next
> > couple of months.
> > Was a tag created for 6.5.1? The object is to be able to check out any
> > particular release, bugs and all, whenever we feel like it.
>
> You can always do a checkout by date if you need to capture the state of
> the cvs tree at some particular past time. Frozen tags are just a (very
> inefficient) way of remembering specific past times that you think are
> likely to be of interest.

Okay, you lost me on this one...why is it inefficient to tag the tree on
the date of a release vs trying to remember that date? *raised eyebrow*
In fact, vs trying to remember the exact date *and* time of a release?

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-08-25 15:02:45 Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 1999-08-25 14:33:02 AW: [HACKERS] vacuum process size