Mailing lists [pgsql-hackers]

1 September 1999

• 01:54   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Oleg Bartunov
• 02:09   Changes for 6.5.2 ? Oleg Bartunov
• 03:35   Yacc output faulty ("current") Rainer Klute
• 04:22   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 06:50   SELECT BUG José Soares
• 07:13   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Milan Zamazal
• 07:18   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Milan Zamazal
• 07:47   need help for array appending & deleting Peter Blazso
• 09:25   Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: Unable to locate type oid 718 in catalog Tom Lane
• 09:27   Re: [HACKERS] OID 718 and Circle Tom Lane
• 09:31   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 09:42   Re: [HACKERS] File descriptor leakage? Tom Lane
• 09:57   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Tom Lane
• 10:00   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? Tom Lane
• 10:06   Re: [HACKERS] need help for array appending & deleting Tom Lane
• 10:14   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? Oleg Bartunov
• 10:35   RE: [HACKERS] need help for array appending & deleting Peter Mount
• 10:43   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? The Hermit Hacker
• 10:48   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? Tom Lane
• 12:33   [PATCHES] patch for 6.5.X tree (fwd) Oleg Bartunov
• 12:48   Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: Unable to locate type oid 718 in catalog G. Anthony Reina
• 13:19   ... Hub.Org News Admin
• 13:53   Re: [PATCHES] patch for 6.5.X tree (fwd) The Hermit Hacker
• 15:23   Funny mail D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain
• 16:07   Re: [HACKERS] Funny mail The Hermit Hacker
• 16:13   Re: [HACKERS] Funny mail The Hermit Hacker
• 19:27   Re: [SQL] entries in pg_shadow Bruce Momjian
• 19:33   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 19:58   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 19:58   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 20:06   Re: [HACKERS] Yacc output faulty ("current") Bruce Momjian
• 20:06   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? Bruce Momjian
• 20:25   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? The Hermit Hacker
• 20:26   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? Bruce Momjian
• 21:41   Re: [HACKERS] Changes for 6.5.2 ? The Hermit Hacker

2 September 1999

• 00:37   md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 01:26   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Thomas Lockhart
• 02:40   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 02:48   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Hannu Krosing
• 06:30   RE: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Hiroshi Inoue
• 06:31   Commercial question Oleg Bartunov
• 08:38   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Leon
• 08:43   RE: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you The Hermit Hacker
• 09:03   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 09:07   Re: Linux/Postgres 6.5 problems using jdbc w/jdk1.2 Christian Denning
• 09:08   Re: [HACKERS] Commercial question The Hermit Hacker
• 09:20   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 09:35   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 09:49   Re: [HACKERS] Commercial question Oleg Bartunov
• 09:49   Odd problem with pg_class ... The Hermit Hacker
• 09:59   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Thomas Lockhart
• 10:07   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 10:14   Re: [HACKERS] Odd problem with pg_class ... The Hermit Hacker
• 10:16   vacuum analyze Michael Simms
• 10:41   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Leon
• 10:45   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 10:56   Re: [HACKERS] Odd problem with pg_class ... Tom Lane
• 11:04   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Thomas Lockhart
• 11:05   Re: [HACKERS] Odd problem with pg_class ... Tom Lane
• 11:22   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Bruce Momjian
• 11:24   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Tom Lane
• 11:34   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Vadim Mikheev
• 11:36   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum analyze Tom Lane
• 11:39   Lexer again. Leon
• 12:10   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Leon
• 12:15   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Thomas Lockhart
• 12:34   Re: [HACKERS] Odd problem with pg_class ... Ricardo Coelho
• 12:50   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 13:35   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 14:18   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Leon
• 15:38   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum analyze Michael Simms
• 17:07   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum analyze Tom Lane
• 19:05   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 21:04   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Tatsuo Ishii
• 21:51   Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution Thomas Lockhart
• 22:19   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Thomas Lockhart
• 22:32   Re: University Masters Project Bruce Momjian
• 23:03   RE: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Hiroshi Inoue
• 23:05   RE: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Hiroshi Inoue

3 September 1999

• 00:39   RE: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Hiroshi Inoue
• 01:51   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 02:01   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 03:15   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Andreas Zeugswetter
• 03:37   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 03:51   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 04:01   AW: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Andreas Zeugswetter
• 07:00   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 07:21   Re: [HACKERS] Re: University Masters Project The Hermit Hacker
• 08:32   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 10:48   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 10:49   main tree is (slightly) damaged Thomas Lockhart
• 11:01   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Tom Lane
• 11:06   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 11:07   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 11:15   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 11:22   Re: AW: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 11:37   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Tom Lane
• 11:44   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Leon
• 11:49   Re: [HACKERS] main tree is (slightly) damaged Tom Lane
• 11:50   Postgres Performance Edwin Ramirez
• 12:09   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Thomas Lockhart
• 12:11   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Tom Lane
• 13:29   RE: [HACKERS] Re: University Masters Project Mark Proctor
• 13:44   Re: [HACKERS] Re: University Masters Project Bruce Momjian
• 13:45   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Tom Lane
• 18:00   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Massimo Dal Zotto
• 18:42   relcache.c leaks refcnts Tom Lane
• 18:56   array manipulations Peter Blazso

4 September 1999

• 01:44   PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Yu Cao
• 10:11   temp table oddness? Tatsuo Ishii
• 10:59   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 11:09   Re: [HACKERS] array manipulations Tom Lane
• 11:19   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Tom Lane
• 11:37   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 11:59   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 12:12   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 12:14   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 12:17   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 12:24   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 12:27   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 12:46   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 13:28   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 15:07   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 15:14   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Bruce Momjian
• 15:27   Re: [HACKERS] array manipulations Peter Blazso
• 15:53   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 17:16   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 18:15   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 18:22   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Bruce Momjian
• 18:35   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tom Lane
• 19:05   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness?u Bruce Momjian
• 22:31   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tatsuo Ishii
• 22:32   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tatsuo Ishii

5 September 1999

• 09:57   프로그램과게임리스트입니다. supercd@hanmail.net
• 11:07   RH6.0/Sparc and PG 6.5.1 Damond Walker
• 11:34   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 18:18   DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 18:44   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Michael Simms
• 18:54   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 19:08   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Michael Simms
• 20:58   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tatsuo Ishii
• 21:13   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Vadim Mikheev
• 22:00   [HACKERS] main tree is (slightly) damaged Thomas Lockhart
• 22:01   [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Edwin Ramirez
• 22:03   [HACKERS] array manipulations Peter Blazso
• 22:03   [HACKERS] relcache.c leaks refcnts Tom Lane
• 22:05   [HACKERS] temp table oddness? Tatsuo Ishii
• 22:12   [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 22:38   Re: [HACKERS] relcache.c leaks refcnts Bruce Momjian

6 September 1999

• 02:57   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Yu Cao
• 04:54   RE: [HACKERS] Postgres' lexer Ansley, Michael
• 07:56   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Leon
• 10:13   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Tom Lane
• 10:15   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 10:46   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 11:06   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Tom Lane
• 12:09   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Leon
• 13:01   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Evan Simpson
• 13:16   Troubles from using pg_dumpall with dbname Hannu Krosing
• 14:25   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Hannu Krosing
• 19:41   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Yu Cao
• 21:11   RE: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Hiroshi Inoue
• 21:48   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Vadim Mikheev
• 22:58   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 23:03   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 23:10   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Vadim Mikheev
• 23:20   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Philip Warner

7 September 1999

• 00:06   Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness? flo
• 00:18   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Vadim Mikheev
• 02:36   problem about message type 0x45 Yann-Ju Chu
• 03:27   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Andreas Zeugswetter
• 08:17   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 08:17   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG José Soares
• 08:57   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block José Soares
• 09:19   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.1: libpq++ libraries on IRIX 6.5 Tom Lane
• 09:37   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Tom Lane
• 09:55   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 10:04   Re: [HACKERS] problem about message type 0x45 Tom Lane
• 11:44   Re: [HACKERS] SELECT BUG Bruce Momjian
• 15:25   Re: [HACKERS] optimizer pruning problem Roberto Cornacchia
• 17:27   Re: [HACKERS] optimizer pruning problem Tom Lane
• 17:40   Stability questions RE 6.5 and 6.3.2 & 6.3.2 problems Jason Venner
• 20:28   RE: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Hiroshi Inoue
• 20:49   Re: [HACKERS] Stability questions RE 6.5 and 6.3.2 & 6.3.2 problems Tatsuo Ishii
• 23:05   Re: [HACKERS] main tree is (slightly) damaged Thomas Lockhart

8 September 1999

• 05:41   RE: [HACKERS] optimizer pruning problem Hiroshi Inoue
• 08:18   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum analyze Christof Petig
• 09:32   Re: [HACKERS] Stability questions RE 6.5 and 6.3.2 & 6.3.2 problems Tom Lane
• 09:44   Re: [HACKERS] main tree is (slightly) damaged Tom Lane
• 10:42   PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 12:18   Re: [HACKERS] main tree is (slightly) damaged Tom Lane
• 12:49   Problem enabling pltcl Patrick Logan
• 13:31   Re: [HACKERS] Problem enabling pltcl Lamar Owen
• 14:31   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Bruce Momjian
• 15:05   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 15:07   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Bruce Momjian
• 15:36   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 16:33   Re: Problem enabling pltcl Patrick Logan
• 17:13   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Edwin Ramirez
• 17:35   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Tom Lane
• 17:38   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Michael Simms
• 17:43   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Problem enabling pltcl Tom Lane
• 18:02   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Bruce Momjian
• 18:10   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 18:18   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 18:24   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Tom Lane
• 18:42   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Tom Lane
• 18:45   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Bruce Momjian
• 18:48   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Bruce Momjian
• 20:30   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Tom Lane
• 21:41   Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Michael Simms
• 21:58   Sparc stuff again. Damond Walker
• 23:12   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Bruce Momjian

9 September 1999

• 06:57   Re: [HACKERS] Problem enabling pltcl wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 07:03   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Problem enabling pltcl wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 08:22   Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/lib (stringinfo.c) Thomas Lockhart
• 08:37   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Problem enabling pltcl Thomas Lockhart
• 09:45   Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/lib (stringinfo.c) Tom Lane
• 10:46   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 11:57   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Lamar Owen
• 12:02   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Lamar Owen
• 12:32   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Bruce Momjian
• 12:33   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Bruce Momjian
• 12:38   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 12:50   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Tom Lane
• 12:53   How to use pg_log ? Stéphane FILLON
• 13:06   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status? Tom Lane
• 13:53   RPM restrictions (was:Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status?) Lamar Owen
• 14:58   pgindent Bernard Frankpitt
• 15:39   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Michael Simms
• 15:46   Re: [HACKERS] pgindent Bruce Momjian
• 17:00   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Edwin Ramirez

10 September 1999

• 00:38   Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/lib (stringinfo.c) Thomas Lockhart
• 02:16   Re: [ADMIN] How to use pg_log ? Jacques B. Dimanche
• 02:39   RE: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Hiroshi Inoue
• 02:50   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Vadim Mikheev
• 05:16   RE: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Hiroshi Inoue
• 05:21   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Vadim Mikheev
• 09:48   Re: Query about postgres medical database Thomas Lockhart
• 10:23   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/lib (stringinfo.c) Tom Lane
• 10:31   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 11:03   Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance Tom Lane
• 11:22   RE: [HACKERS] Re: Query about postgres medical database Dmitry Samersoff
• 19:07   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 19:50   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 20:32   serial type Michael Simms

11 September 1999

• 04:07   case bug? Tatsuo Ishii
• 09:42   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Thomas Lockhart
• 11:35   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Tom Lane
• 11:56   Re: [HACKERS] serial type Tom Lane
• 13:59   Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Tom Lane
• 15:04   Re: Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Michael Simms
• 18:51   Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 19:26   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 20:40   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 21:04   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Tatsuo Ishii

12 September 1999

• 04:58   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Query about postgres medical database renato barrios
• 05:17   Possible bug... Gabriel Akos
• 08:23   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 11:36   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 12:09   Re: [HACKERS] Possible bug... Tom Lane
• 16:47   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems The Hermit Hacker
• 16:48   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Fixing Simms' vacuum problems The Hermit Hacker
• 18:05   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tatsuo Ishii
• 18:05   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Tatsuo Ishii
• 18:39   configure & template files ... The Hermit Hacker
• 18:51   Re: [HACKERS] configure & template files ... The Hermit Hacker
• 19:34   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Tom Lane
• 20:09   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Bruce Momjian
• 20:29   pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Bruce Momjian
• 21:19   pg_dump table order Ross J. Reedstrom
• 21:36   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump table order Ross J. Reedstrom
• 22:06   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump table order Bruce Momjian
• 22:48   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems] Bruce Momjian
• 22:55   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems] The Hermit Hacker
• 23:34   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Thomas Lockhart
• 23:46   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Thomas Lockhart

13 September 1999

• 00:06   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Thomas Lockhart
• 00:32   jdbc1 large objects and 651 -- does it work for anyone Jason Venner
• 02:10   Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Constantin Teodorescu
• 02:41   RE: [HACKERS] jdbc1 large objects and 651 -- does it work for any one Peter Mount
• 04:22   RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Ansley, Michael
• 09:47   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 09:47   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 10:07   Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? The Hermit Hacker
• 10:10   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 10:38   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 10:42   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump table order Tom Lane
• 10:45   Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Constantin Teodorescu
• 10:55   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 11:01   Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Bruce Momjian
• 11:01   Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Bruce Momjian
• 11:20   RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Ansley, Michael
• 11:33   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Bruce Momjian
• 11:33   Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgaccess update for 6.5.2? Bruce Momjian
• 11:51   RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Ansley, Michael
• 11:54   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Thomas Lockhart
• 12:02   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump table order Bruce Momjian
• 12:33   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Bruce Momjian
• 12:43   HISTORY for 6.5.2 Oleg Bartunov
• 13:12   Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 13:32   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump table order Dmitry Samersoff
• 13:39   Re: [HACKERS] HISTORY for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 13:43   Nested transactions Dmitry Samersoff
• 13:43   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 13:54   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 13:57   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 13:58   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 14:13   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 14:22   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Leon
• 14:29   Re: [HACKERS] Fixing Simms' vacuum problems Vadim Mikheev
• 14:38   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Vadim Mikheev
• 14:53   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Bruce Momjian
• 16:03   Re: [HACKERS] jdbc1 large objects and 651 -- does it work for any one Jason Venner
• 16:27   Patch for user-defined C-language functions Bernard Frankpitt
• 16:48   - WANTED John Henry
• 16:53   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Tom Lane
• 16:57   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 17:06   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 17:23   Is "isolation" a restricted word? G. Anthony Reina
• 17:46   Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? Ross J. Reedstrom
• 17:49   Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? G. Anthony Reina
• 18:39   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Bruce Momjian
• 18:40   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 20:20   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Tom Lane
• 21:33   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 22:16   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Thomas Lockhart
• 22:27   Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? Thomas Lockhart
• 22:59   Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? Thomas Lockhart

14 September 1999

• 03:45   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Andreas Zeugswetter
• 04:03   RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Ansley, Michael
• 07:20   ISO dates with European Format Theo Kramer
• 07:47   Re: [HACKERS] Performance of MIN() and MAX() Gene Sokolov
• 08:53   Explicit direction of index using Dmitry Samersoff
• 09:41   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Thomas Lockhart
• 09:43   Re: [HACKERS] Explicit direction of index using Thomas Lockhart
• 09:54   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 10:00   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Theo Kramer
• 10:21   Re: [HACKERS] serial type Thomas Lockhart
• 10:27   Re: [HACKERS] Performance of MIN() and MAX() Tom Lane
• 10:38   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Thomas Lockhart
• 10:42   Re: [HACKERS] serial type Tom Lane
• 10:53   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Tom Lane
• 10:59   Re: [HACKERS] serial type Thomas Lockhart
• 11:21   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 11:24   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Bernard Frankpitt
• 11:25   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Theo Kramer
• 11:45   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Thomas Lockhart
• 13:07   Re: [HACKERS] ISO dates with European Format Theo Kramer
• 14:17   BUG with UNIQUE clause Stéphane FILLON
• 14:17   Permission problem with COPY FROM Stéphane FILLON
• 18:19   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 18:37   - WANTED John Henry
• 18:46   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 21:38   Re: [HACKERS] Performance of MIN() and MAX() Damond Walker

15 September 1999

• 00:23   Re: [HACKERS] Permission problem with COPY FROM Nuchanach Klinjun
• 00:28   problem with SQLGetInfo Nuchanach Klinjun
• 00:54   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Mike Mascari
• 01:47   6.6 Vadim Mikheev
• 09:48   Re: [HACKERS] BUG with UNIQUE clause Tom Lane
• 10:02   Re: [HACKERS] Permission problem with COPY FROM Tom Lane
• 10:03   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Tom Lane
• 12:51   Comparison Suggestion Michael Dexter
• 14:12   Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 Bruce Momjian
• 19:51   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 20:07   NOTICE: SIReadEntryData: cache state reset TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(RelationNameCache->hctl->nkeys == 10):", File: "relcache.c", Line: 1458) Jason Venner
• 20:30   postgresql-6.5.2RC.tar.gz The Hermit Hacker
• 20:40   patches -- sucker for punishment? The Hermit Hacker
• 23:04   Join syntax Thomas Lockhart

16 September 1999

• 03:37   Re: [HACKERS] patches Leon
• 08:23   Is there a maintainer for ecpg? patch included Christof Petig
• 09:50   Re: [HACKERS] NOTICE: SIReadEntryData: cache state reset TRAP: Failed Assertion("!(RelationNameCache->hctl->nkeys == 10):", File: "relcache.c", Line: 1458) Tom Lane
• 10:11   Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax Tom Lane
• 10:17   1d,1e,1f poison for data? Richard Bouska
• 11:15   Re: [HACKERS] 1d,1e,1f poison for data? Tom Lane
• 12:29   Doccumentation Patch for Create Function Bernard Frankpitt
• 15:38   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 21:06   TRUNCATE TABLE patch Mike Mascari
• 21:37   couldn't rollback cache ? Hiroshi Inoue
• 21:54   pgaccess seems a tad confused Tom Lane
• 21:58   Re: attdisbursion Bruce Momjian

17 September 1999

• 00:12   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused Bruce Momjian
• 00:47   Re: [QUESTIONS] errors on transactions and locks ? Bruce Momjian
• 01:58   Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax Thomas Lockhart
• 02:18   Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax Vadim Mikheev
• 02:49   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Theo Kramer
• 02:55   Hierarchical query? Kaare Rasmussen
• 06:41   Bug Oleg Broytmann
• 06:51   Re: [HACKERS] Hierarchical query? Hannu Krosing
• 09:59   Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Tom Lane
• 10:21   Re: [HACKERS] Bug Tom Lane
• 10:51   Re: [HACKERS] Join syntax Tom Lane
• 11:02   Re: [HACKERS] Re: attdisbursion Tom Lane
• 11:50   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused Brook Milligan
• 11:52   Re: [HACKERS] Bug Bruce Momjian
• 11:53   Re: [HACKERS] Re: attdisbursiont Bruce Momjian
• 12:50   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused Bruce Momjian
• 17:46   Re: [HACKERS] Re: attdisbursiont Tom Lane
• 17:49   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused Tom Lane
• 21:35   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Bruce Momjian
• 21:35   Re: [HACKERS] Re: attdisbursiont Bruce Momjian

18 September 1999

• 10:59   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 11:33   Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 12:12   Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 12:40   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Keith Parks
• 13:21   Patches for alpha w. cc Adriaan Joubert
• 15:32   Notice: heap_open/close changes committed Tom Lane
• 15:38   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Tom Lane
• 15:59   Why do we need pg_vlock? Tom Lane
• 16:14   Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] changes in 6.4 Bruce Momjian
• 16:31   Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock? Bruce Momjian
• 16:36   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 16:46   setheapoverride() considered harmful Tom Lane
• 16:53   v6.5.2 vacuum...? The Hermit Hacker
• 17:03   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 17:27   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 17:31   Re: [HACKERS] setheapoverride() considered harmful Bruce Momjian
• 18:01   Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs Bruce Momjian
• 18:02   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 18:08   Re: [HACKERS] Some progress on INSERT/SELECT/GROUP BY bugs Tom Lane
• 18:20   Re: [HACKERS] v6.5.2 vacuum...? Tom Lane
• 18:40   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Michael Alan Dorman
• 19:30   Re: [HACKERS] v6.5.2 vacuum...? The Hermit Hacker
• 19:32   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Tom Lane
• 19:40   Re: [HACKERS] v6.5.2 vacuum...? Tom Lane
• 20:03   Re: [HACKERS] v6.5.2 vacuum...? The Hermit Hacker
• 22:17   Re: [HACKERS] v6.5.2 vacuum...? Bruce Momjian
• 23:03   money;money;money Geocrawler.com
• 23:07   PostgreSQL-6.5.1-0.7lo RPMs available. Lamar Owen
• 23:39   Re: [HACKERS] money;money;money -- spam;spam;spam J. Michael Roberts

19 September 1999

• 01:30   [6.5.2] join problems ... The Hermit Hacker
• 01:41   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Thomas Lockhart
• 01:52   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Thomas Lockhart
• 02:11   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Michael Simms
• 03:17   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... Mike Mascari
• 05:43   Re: [HACKERS] case bug? Keith Parks
• 09:03   Spam Geocrawler.com
• 09:31   PERL Jason Doller
• 09:49   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... The Hermit Hacker
• 10:40   All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 10:57   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... Thomas Lockhart
• 10:57   Re: [INTERFACES] PERL Brett W. McCoy
• 11:08   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Thomas Lockhart
• 11:25   INSERT/DEFAULT VALUES broken? Thomas Lockhart
• 11:48   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 11:54   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Tom Lane
• 12:00   Re: INSERT/DEFAULT VALUES broken? Tom Lane
• 12:04   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Tom Lane
• 12:27   Re: INSERT/DEFAULT VALUES broken? Thomas Lockhart
• 12:29   Re: [PATCHES] Patches for alpha w. cc Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 12:31   Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) Michael Simms
• 13:24   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... Mike Mascari
• 13:26   Re: INSERT/DEFAULT VALUES broken? Tom Lane
• 13:35   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Tom Lane
• 14:49   Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism? Tom Lane
• 15:17   Re: [PORTS] Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2 Uncle George
• 15:41   Re: [HACKERS] Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) Lamar Owen
• 15:53   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 16:55   Re: [HACKERS] Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) Bruce Momjian
• 16:56   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... Bruce Momjian
• 17:31   Re: [HACKERS] Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) Lamar Owen
• 20:24   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 frankpit@pop.dn.net
• 20:31   Re: [HACKERS] Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) Bruce Momjian
• 21:25   Re: [HACKERS] Notice: heap_open/close changes committed Vadim Mikheev
• 21:29   Re: [HACKERS] Why do we need pg_vlock? Vadim Mikheev
• 21:58   Re: [HACKERS] Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism? Vadim Mikheev
• 22:18   Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Vadim Mikheev
• 22:44   RE: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Hiroshi Inoue
• 23:08   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Thomas Lockhart
• 23:10   Re: INSERT/DEFAULT VALUES broken? Thomas Lockhart
• 23:35   why do shmem attach? Vadim Mikheev
• 23:48   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Michael Robinson

20 September 1999

• 00:31   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Bruce Momjian
• 00:31   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Bruce Momjian
• 01:37   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Vadim Mikheev
• 01:53   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Dmitry Samersoff
• 02:25   RE: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Hiroshi Inoue
• 03:00   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Vadim Mikheev
• 03:23   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Theo Kramer
• 06:02   Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 08:21   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Chris Bitmead
• 09:31   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Bruce Momjian
• 09:31   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Bruce Momjian
• 09:32   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Bruce Momjian
• 09:36   Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 09:45   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Tom Lane
• 09:48   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? José Soares
• 09:49   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Vadim Mikheev
• 09:56   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Tom Lane
• 10:02   Re: [HACKERS] Notice: heap_open/close changes committed Tom Lane
• 10:13   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 10:13   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Vadim Mikheev
• 10:14   Re: [HACKERS] Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism? Tom Lane
• 10:14   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Bruce Momjian
• 10:17   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Vadim Mikheev
• 10:29   Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Tom Lane
• 10:38   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Tom Lane
• 10:51   Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? Tom Lane
• 11:00   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Tom Lane
• 11:40   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 11:41   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 11:41   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 11:47   Re: [HACKERS] Notice: heap_open/close changes committed Vadim Mikheev
• 12:21   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Brook Milligan
• 12:29   RE: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Peter Mount
• 12:30   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Leon
• 12:55   Crash (maybe related to temp tables) Daniele Orlandi
• 13:05   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 13:33   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Vadim Mikheev
• 14:01   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 14:30   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Bruce Momjian
• 14:53   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Peter Mount
• 15:01   Re: [PORTS] plpgsql & bsdi 4.0 Bruce Momjian
• 16:07   New TODO detail Bruce Momjian
• 16:29   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 17:19   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 17:27   Re: [HACKERS] [6.5.2] join problems ... The Hermit Hacker
• 17:29   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck The Hermit Hacker
• 17:33   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck The Hermit Hacker
• 17:35   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] The Hermit Hacker
• 17:39   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 17:41   Re: [HACKERS] Command Locations (was Re: HISTORY for 6.5....) The Hermit Hacker
• 17:51   create table and default 'now' problem ? Oleg Bartunov
• 18:10   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Bruce Momjian
• 18:18   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Vince Vielhaber
• 18:30   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 18:32   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] The Hermit Hacker
• 18:37   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Bruce Momjian
• 18:49   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Yu Cao
• 18:50   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 18:54   PostgreSQL 6.5.2 RPMS available. Lamar Owen
• 19:04   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Lamar Owen
• 19:05   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Bruce Momjian
• 19:16   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Michael Simms
• 20:19   Re: [PORTS] Linux/Alpha patches for Postgresql 6.5.2 Ryan Kirkpatrick
• 20:45   Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused] Lamar Owen
• 21:29   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 21:44   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 21:52   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Vince Vielhaber
• 21:55   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Vince Vielhaber
• 21:58   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 22:11   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 22:15   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 22:48   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 23:03   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? les@Mars.mcs.net (Leslie Mikesell)

21 September 1999

• 00:27   postmaster disappears Tatsuo Ishii
• 01:15   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Mike Mascari
• 02:01   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Thomas Lockhart
• 02:05   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? The Hermit Hacker
• 02:05   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? The Hermit Hacker
• 02:15   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 02:17   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Thomas Lockhart
• 02:59   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Hannu Krosing
• 04:44   Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 04:48   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 05:03   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 05:18   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 05:25   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Andreas Zeugswetter
• 05:27   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Vince Vielhaber
• 05:57   RE: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Hiroshi Inoue
• 07:46   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 08:21   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck The Hermit Hacker
• 08:27   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Oleg Bartunov
• 08:44   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? José Soares
• 09:41   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Thomas Lockhart
• 09:43   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Tom Lane
• 10:01   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Tom Lane
• 10:02   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 10:03   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 10:11   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Oleg Bartunov
• 10:27   Re: [HACKERS] create table and default 'now' problem ? Tom Lane
• 10:34   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Vadim Mikheev
• 10:44   Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Tom Lane
• 10:46   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 10:52   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2] Bruce Momjian
• 11:02   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:15   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Vadim Mikheev
• 11:22   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2] Thomas Lockhart
• 11:28   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Tatsuo Ishii
• 11:36   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:50   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Andreas Zeugswetter
• 12:06   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 12:13   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Vadim Mikheev
• 12:19   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 12:19   [GENERAL] when are indexes used? InfraRED
• 12:36   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Brook Milligan
• 12:45   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Vince Vielhaber
• 13:15   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 13:19   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Vadim Mikheev
• 14:53   RI question wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 15:04   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2] The Hermit Hacker
• 15:10   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL Vadim Mikheev
• 15:15   Re: [HACKERS] RI question Vadim Mikheev
• 15:16   unsubscribe Dae Weon Son
• 15:21   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 The Hermit Hacker
• 15:36   Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 15:42   Re: [HACKERS] Partial fix for INSERT...SELECT problems Bruce Momjian
• 15:44   Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior of UPDATE Bruce Momjian
• 15:46   Re: [HACKERS] INSERT INTO view means what exactly? Bruce Momjian
• 15:48   Re: [HACKERS] inherited GROUP BY is busted ... I need some help here Bruce Momjian
• 15:55   Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Bernard Frankpitt
• 16:27   Re: [HACKERS] INSERT INTO view means what exactly? wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 17:01   Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Bruce Momjian
• 17:14   Re: [HACKERS] Re: Referential Integrity In PostgreSQL wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 17:40   Re: [HACKERS] Problems with src/pl/tcl/mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh.in in 6.5 Bruce Momjian
• 19:02   Re: [HACKERS] Problems with src/pl/tcl/mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh.in in 6.5 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 19:12   Re: Installing PostgreSQL Bill Geddes
• 19:39   Re: [HACKERS] Problems with src/pl/tcl/mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh.in in 6.5 Bruce Momjian
• 21:08   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Tom Lane
• 21:12   Re: [HACKERS] Partial fix for INSERT...SELECT problems Tom Lane
• 21:17   Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior of UPDATE Tom Lane
• 21:20   Re: [HACKERS] inherited GROUP BY is busted ... I need some help here Tom Lane
• 21:29   Re: [HACKERS] Problems with src/pl/tcl/mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh.in in 6.5 Tom Lane
• 21:35   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Tom Lane
• 22:33   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Bruce Momjian
• 23:18   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) frankpit@pop.dn.net

22 September 1999

• 00:49   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Tatsuo Ishii
• 01:48   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type The Hermit Hacker
• 02:21   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Adriaan Joubert
• 03:26   Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck Billy G. Allie
• 06:05   Problem with new function Grzegorz Przeździecki
• 06:10   RE: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Hiroshi Inoue
• 09:38   Operator definitions Adriaan Joubert
• 10:27   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Tom Lane
• 10:39   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Tom Lane
• 11:00   Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] when are indexes used? Tom Lane
• 11:11   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Bernard Frankpitt
• 11:20   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Thomas Lockhart
• 11:33   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Thomas Lockhart
• 11:36   Re: [HACKERS] Early evaluation of constant expresions (with PATCH) Tom Lane
• 12:33   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 12:41   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster disappears Bruce Momjian
• 16:27   Compile timing Bruce Momjian
• 16:54   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 16:57   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Tom Lane
• 17:09   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Lamar Owen
• 18:30   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Tom Lane
• 20:06   Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Tom Lane
• 20:27   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? The Hermit Hacker
• 20:30   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 21:22   Re: Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Tom Lane
• 21:26   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 22:24   Another RI question wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 23:31   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Bruce Momjian

23 September 1999

• 01:39   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Thomas Lockhart
• 01:46   ... Adam Haberlach
• 03:45   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Adriaan Joubert
• 03:58   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 04:08   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Andreas Zeugswetter
• 04:10   Problem with new function Grzegorz Przeździecki
• 04:17   Problem with new function Grzegorz Przeździecki
• 04:28   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Adriaan Joubert
• 04:50   Re: Leon
• 05:00   Re Problem with new function Grzegorz Przeździecki
• 05:13   Problems when opening large objects in the server side. Jose Antonio Cotelo lema
• 05:21   Re: [HACKERS] Another RI question Andreas Zeugswetter
• 06:18   RE: [HACKERS] IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current trees Hiroshi Inoue
• 06:35   RE: [HACKERS] IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current tree s Horak Daniel
• 09:34   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Thomas Lockhart
• 09:45   Re: [HACKERS] Another RI question wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 09:47   Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? Tom Lane
• 09:59   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Thomas Lockhart
• 10:02   Re: [HACKERS] Re Problem with new function Thomas Lockhart
• 10:18   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Tom Lane
• 10:31   Lexxing and yaccing... Ansley, Michael
• 10:42   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Tom Lane
• 10:50   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Lamar Owen
• 10:52   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Tom Lane
• 10:58   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Adriaan Joubert
• 10:59   Re: [HACKERS] Problem with new function Tom Lane
• 11:02   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Bruce Momjian
• 11:03   Re: [HACKERS] Compile timing Bruce Momjian
• 11:14   RI and NULL's wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:23   Re: [HACKERS] Problem with new function wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:35   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:38   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Bruce Momjian
• 11:43   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 11:59   Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] when are indexes used? InfraRED/Veres Tibor
• 12:20   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Adriaan Joubert
• 12:48   Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] when are indexes used? Andreas Zeugswetter
• 13:28   Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? Bruce Momjian
• 13:29   Re: [SQL] Re: [HACKERS] SELECT DISTINCT question Bruce Momjian
• 13:36   [HACKERS] 9-key index ? (fwd) Bruce Momjian
• 15:09   Re: [HACKERS] VIEW definitions broken in 6.5.0 Bruce Momjian
• 15:12   Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump quoting bug Bruce Momjian
• 16:58   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Hannu Krosing
• 17:29   Re: [SQL] Re: [HACKERS] SELECT DISTINCT question Tom Lane
• 17:37   Re: [SQL] partial indexes (indices) Tom Lane
• 17:39   Re: [HACKERS] VIEW definitions broken in 6.5.0 Tom Lane
• 17:44   Re: [HACKERS] Progress report: buffer refcount bugs and SQL functions Tom Lane
• 18:02   Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha Bruce Momjian
• 18:03   Re: [PORTS] Re: [HACKERS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha Bruce Momjian
• 18:05   Re: [SQL] Re: [HACKERS] SELECT DISTINCT question Bruce Momjian
• 18:05   Re: [SQL] Re: [HACKERS] SELECT DISTINCT question Bruce Momjian
• 18:39   Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha Lamar Owen
• 19:30   Re: [HACKERS] RI and NULL's Philip Warner
• 19:43    Sean Mullen
• 20:33   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha Tom Lane
• 20:38   Frustration Michael Simms
• 20:58   Re: [HACKERS] Frustration Tom Lane
• 21:52   Re: [HACKERS] Frustration Michael Simms

24 September 1999

• 01:24   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Adriaan Joubert
• 02:13   int8 and index Tatsuo Ishii
• 02:29   RE: [HACKERS] int8 and index Hiroshi Inoue
• 02:37   Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index Tatsuo Ishii
• 09:09   psql issues Peter Eisentraut
• 09:09   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type José Soares
• 09:10   Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? Peter Eisentraut
• 09:11   RE: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? Hiroshi Inoue
• 09:13   postgres startup script modification (Linux RedHat) Daniel Péder
• 10:21   Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? José Soares
• 10:24   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Thomas Lockhart
• 10:30   Re: [HACKERS] Frustration Tom Lane
• 10:57   Re: PostgreSQL Upgrade Procedure Thomas Lockhart
• 11:08   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Tom Lane
• 11:09   Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index Tom Lane
• 11:27   postgres startup script modification (Linux RedHat) Daniel Péder
• 11:28   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Adriaan Joubert
• 11:31   Re: [HACKERS] psql issues Tom Lane
• 14:38   Re: Frustrated Michael Simms

25 September 1999

• 09:09   Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:16   Profiling? Leon
• 11:52   a test ... The Hermit Hacker
• 15:45   psql code to be obducted by alien (me) Peter Eisentraut
• 16:43   Profiling? Leon
• 18:58   Re: [HACKERS] psql code to be obducted by alien (me) Tom Lane
• 21:13   Making proiscachable believable Tom Lane
• 21:24   cvs having problems? Tom Lane
• 21:51   Re: [HACKERS] cvs having problems? The Hermit Hacker

26 September 1999

• 11:57   libpq.rc for Win32 Edmund Mergl
• 20:06   Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index Bruce Momjian
• 20:10   Re: [HACKERS] create rule changes table to view ? Bruce Momjian
• 20:11   RE: [HACKERS] Frustration Hiroshi Inoue
• 20:19   Re: [HACKERS] psql issues Bruce Momjian
• 20:26   Re: [HACKERS] psql code to be obducted by alien (me) Bruce Momjian
• 20:27   Re: [HACKERS] Profiling? Bruce Momjian
• 20:33   Re: [HACKERS] libpq.rc for Win32 Bruce Momjian
• 20:45   Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type Bruce Momjian
• 20:49   Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index Bruce Momjian
• 21:07   RE: [HACKERS] int8 and index Hiroshi Inoue
• 23:28   Re: [HACKERS] A multi-lang patch for psql 6.5.1 (fwd) Bruce Momjian
• 23:30   Re: [HACKERS] double opens Bruce Momjian

27 September 1999

• 01:32   TODO items (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/include/nodes (execnodes.h)) Tom Lane
• 02:25   question. Ryan Mills
• 04:08   Re: [HACKERS] Profiling? Leon
• 04:09   RE: [HACKERS] psql code to be obducted by alien (me) Peter Mount
• 04:47   RE: [HACKERS] Index access using multi-column indices Hiroshi Inoue
• 08:10   Column crypt Olivier PRENANT
• 09:26   Re: [HACKERS] Frustration Tom Lane
• 09:32   Re: [HACKERS] int8 and index Tom Lane
• 09:36   Re: [HACKERS] double opens Tom Lane
• 10:21   _text problem in union Zakkr
• 11:24   Re: TODO items (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/include/nodes (execnodes.h)) Bruce Momjian
• 11:31   Re: New init script and upgrade attempt: failed Lamar Owen
• 11:41   RE: [HACKERS] Lexxing and yaccing... Ansley, Michael
• 12:03   Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 12:08   Re: [HACKERS] Profiling?] Bruce Momjian
• 12:08   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Bruce Momjian
• 12:08   Re: [HACKERS] double opens Bruce Momjian
• 12:08   Re: [PATCHES] RE: [HACKERS] Index access using multi-column indices Bruce Momjian
• 12:43   Re: [HACKERS] Profiling?] Leon
• 12:45   Re: [HACKERS] Cannot insert into temp tables Bruce Momjian
• 12:50   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Hannu Krosing
• 12:53   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Bruce Momjian
• 12:55   Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded Bruce Momjian
• 14:01   NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions Oleg Bartunov
• 14:07   Re: [HACKERS] another DECIMAL problem Bruce Momjian
• 14:07   Re: [HACKERS] Inefficiencies in COPY command Bruce Momjian
• 14:21   Re: [PATCHES] Index access using multi-column indices Bruce Momjian
• 14:23   Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 14:36   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size Bruce Momjian
• 14:36   Re: [HACKERS] backend freezeing on win32 fixed (I hope ;-) ) Bruce Momjian
• 14:49   RI status report #1 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 15:03   Re: [GENERAL] Error during 'vacuum analyze' Bruce Momjian
• 15:32   Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions Bruce Momjian
• 15:33   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1 Bruce Momjian
• 15:44   Re: [HACKERS] Files ... Bruce Momjian
• 15:56   Re: [HACKERS] IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current trees Bruce Momjian
• 16:32   Re: new patches Bruce Momjian
• 16:33   Re: patch for large queries Bruce Momjian
• 16:34   Re: new patches... Bruce Momjian
• 16:37   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 16:55   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 16:55   Re: [HACKERS] Re: IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current trees Bruce Momjian
• 16:56   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 16:56   Re: bug in array contrib Bruce Momjian
• 17:04   Re: [HACKERS] Lexer again. Bruce Momjian
• 17:17   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 18:41   Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded Tom Lane
• 18:51   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size Tom Lane
• 19:32   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Tom Lane
• 19:38   Re: [HACKERS] Re: New init script and upgrade attempt: failed  Tom Lane
• 19:39   Re: [HACKERS] Profiling?] Tom Lane
• 19:43   Re: [HACKERS] Re: New init script and upgrade attempt: failed Lamar Owen
• 19:48   Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2  Tom Lane
• 19:51   RE: [HACKERS] Re: IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current trees Hiroshi Inoue
• 20:05   Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 20:07   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1  Tom Lane
• 20:41   RE: [HACKERS] Frustration Hiroshi Inoue
• 21:22   Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size Tatsuo Ishii
• 21:34   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Thomas Lockhart
• 21:43   Re: [HACKERS] Re: IPC on win32 - additions for 6.5.2 and current trees Bruce Momjian
• 21:48   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Bruce Momjian
• 22:58   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 23:33   Re: [HACKERS] Lexer again. Leon
• 23:41   Re: [HACKERS] Lexer again. Bruce Momjian

28 September 1999

• 00:08   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you Bruce Momjian
• 00:09   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 00:10   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 00:10   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 00:12   Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Bruce Momjian
• 00:13   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Bruce Momjian
• 00:23   RE: [HACKERS] Vacuum analyze bug CAUGHT Hiroshi Inoue
• 00:23   Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes Bruce Momjian
• 00:26   Re: [HACKERS] TRUNCATE TABLE patch Bruce Momjian
• 00:34   Re: [HACKERS] Doccumentation Patch for Create Function Bruce Momjian
• 00:34   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Bruce Momjian
• 00:49   Recovery on incomplete write Hiroshi Inoue
• 03:11   Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.2 Oleg Broytmann
• 04:38   Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union Zakkr
• 04:44   Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions Oleg Bartunov
• 04:45   Latest tree Ansley, Michael
• 05:02   Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Vadim Mikheev
• 05:59   Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Tatsuo Ishii
• 06:26   RE: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Ansley, Michael
• 06:26   RE: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Ansley, Michael
• 06:51   Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Vadim Mikheev
• 06:52   Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Vadim Mikheev
• 07:14   RE: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Ansley, Michael
• 07:29   Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] Latest tree Vadim Mikheev
• 08:05   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 09:02   Re: [HACKERS] 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 09:13   Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded Bruce Momjian
• 09:30   Re: [HACKERS] md.c is feeling much better now, thank you  Tom Lane
• 09:41   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 09:44   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1 Thomas Lockhart
• 09:46   Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions Tom Lane
• 10:12   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) Thomas Lockhart
• 10:34   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 10:40   Re: [HACKERS] Recovery on incomplete write  Tom Lane
• 10:56   Re: [HACKERS] Recovery on incomplete write Bruce Momjian
• 11:06   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Thomas Lockhart
• 11:13   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 11:17   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Tom Lane
• 11:20   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 11:21   Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions Bruce Momjian
• 11:29   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 12:12   Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded Bruce Momjian
• 13:30   MS Access upsizing John Ridout
• 14:04   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 14:06   Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status Bruce Momjian
• 15:55   Re: [HACKERS] Heads up: does RULES regress test still work for you? Bruce Momjian
• 16:34   Re: [HACKERS] SYSLOGD facility Bruce Momjian
• 16:55   My mailbox size Bruce Momjian
• 22:27   Re: [HACKERS] MS Access upsizing The Hermit Hacker
• 23:32   Returned Result via ODBC! Nuchanach Klinjun

29 September 1999

• 00:42   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) Thomas Lockhart
• 01:45   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block  Mike Mascari
• 03:18   RE: [HACKERS] Recovery on incomplete write Hiroshi Inoue
• 04:19   RE: [HACKERS] MS Access upsizing Ansley, Michael
• 04:45   Re: [HACKERS] Recovery on incomplete write Christof Petig
• 05:19   RE: [HACKERS] MS Access upsizing John Ridout
• 05:21   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 05:26   RE: [HACKERS] MS Access upsizing John Ridout
• 05:45   Installing PostgreSQL David Godin
• 06:20   Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions (fwd) Oleg Bartunov
• 09:03   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Bruce Momjian
• 09:34   Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block Tom Lane
• 09:35   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) Thomas Lockhart
• 09:41   string function Zakkr
• 09:44   Re: [PATCHES] ECPGlib: NULL into bool, force indicator on NULL (2 patches) Christof Petig
• 09:48   New notices? Thomas Lockhart
• 09:58   Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions (fwd) Tom Lane
• 10:05   Re: [HACKERS] New notices? Tom Lane
• 10:07   Re: [HACKERS] string function D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain
• 10:10   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 10:30   Re: [HACKERS] New notices? Bruce Momjian
• 10:34   Re: New notices? Bruce Momjian
• 10:35   Planner drops unreferenced tables --- bug, no? Tom Lane
• 10:40   Re: [HACKERS] string function Zakkr
• 10:50   Re: [HACKERS] NULL as an argument in plpgsql functions (fwd) Oleg Bartunov
• 10:58   Re: [HACKERS] Planner drops unreferenced tables --- bug, no? wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:05   Re: [HACKERS] Planner drops unreferenced tables --- bug, no?  Tom Lane
• 11:09   Re: New notices? Thomas Lockhart
• 11:23   Re: [HACKERS] Planner drops unreferenced tables --- bug, no? wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:25   Re: [HACKERS] Planner drops unreferenced tables --- bug, no? Don Baccus
• 11:31   Re: [HACKERS] string function Thomas Lockhart
• 11:49   Re: New notices? Bruce Momjian
• 12:04   Re: New notices? Thomas Lockhart
• 12:28   Re: [HACKERS] Re: TODO items Peter Eisentraut
• 12:36   RE: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) Jackson, DeJuan
• 13:00   Re: [HACKERS] string function Zakkr
• 13:17   RI status report #2 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 13:24   Re: [HACKERS] Re: TODO items Bruce Momjian
• 13:32   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Bruce Momjian
• 13:33   Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 13:38   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 13:53   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Bruce Momjian
• 14:54   RI generic trigger procs wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 15:09   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 15:10   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Lamar Owen
• 15:43   Non-beta RPMS for RedHat Linux -- PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Lamar Owen
• 16:34   Re: [HACKERS] RI generic trigger procs Hannu Krosing
• 17:17   Re: [HACKERS] another DECIMAL problem wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 17:17   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1 The Hermit Hacker
• 17:30   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Bruce Momjian
• 17:30   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Bruce Momjian
• 17:42   Re: [HACKERS] another DECIMAL problem Bruce Momjian
• 17:43   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Bruce Momjian
• 17:50   Re: [HACKERS] RI generic trigger procs wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 18:23   Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 6.5.2 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 18:28   shared memory 651, freebsd 2.2.7 Jason Venner
• 19:41   Re: [HACKERS] Re: New notices? Tom Lane
• 19:49   Re: [HACKERS] shared memory 651, freebsd 2.2.7 Tom Lane
• 21:16   Re: [HACKERS] Re: New notices? Bruce Momjian
• 21:23   Re: [HACKERS] shared memory 651, freebsd 2.2.7 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 21:24   Announcement: pgbench-1.1 released Tatsuo Ishii
• 23:06   postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch Tom Lane

30 September 1999

• 00:33   Re: [HACKERS] shared memory 651, freebsd 2.2.7 Don Baccus
• 01:24   Win32 püort of libpq Edmund Mergl
• 01:50   Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2 Christof Petig
• 01:55   Re: Non-beta RPMS for RedHat Linux -- PostgreSQL 6.5.2 Thomas Lockhart
• 02:04   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch Thomas Lockhart
• 02:09   Re: [HACKERS] string function Thomas Lockhart
• 05:28   Re: [HACKERS] string function Zakkr
• 06:42   prosrc index removed wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 07:44   RE: [HACKERS] Win32 pЭort of libpq Dmitry Samersoff
• 08:06   RE: [HACKERS] Win32 pЭort of libpq Vince Vielhaber
• 08:53   RE: [HACKERS] Win32 pЭort of libpq Dmitry Samersoff
• 09:17   ... David Gilbert
• 09:26   Re: [HACKERS] Regression tests on intel for 6.5.2 Tom Lane
• 09:28   RE: Ansley, Michael
• 09:34   ... Tom Lane
• 10:45   ODBC-client->Linux-server: datatype boolean not recognized? Jelle Ruttenberg
• 11:03   RI status report #3 wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
• 11:46   Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #2 Lamar Owen
• 12:09   RE: [HACKERS] Win32 pЭort of libpq Vince Vielhaber
• 13:53   Re: [HACKERS] postmaster dead on startup from unportable SSL patch Bruce Momjian
• 14:22   TO_CHAR() Zakkr