RC1 time?
Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2. Is this a good
time for RC1? Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2. Is this a good
time for RC1? Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?
Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
in to_timestamp/to_date.
I agree we're close though. Anyone object to RC1 this weekend?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2. Is this a good
time for RC1? Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?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?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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.)
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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
Oh, I didn't realize that was a valid issue that needed attention.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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.)
there were a *lot of troubles* with fts.postgresql.org connected with
moving to new server, which is far from my dream computer :-)
We hope to restore all messages we lost in transition period
(we have to take into account references between postings must be persistent !).
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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 :(
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !
Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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 :(
I see on db.postgresql.org
vmstat -w 5
procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id
0 17 0 471224 28184 369 3 4 2 325 334 0 0 331 401 182 29 2 69
0 19 0 414556 19272 644 1 1 0 546 0 0 172 461 823 290 1 2 97
1 19 0 414788 23940 459 4 4 1 474 615 1 170 454 734 286 0 2 98
1 20 0 428592 26912 372 3 14 0 433 592 6 182 480 790 296 1 2 97
2 19 0 458688 30164 318 3 9 0 423 592 3 177 463 787 289 1 2 97
1 17 0 446848 24196 303 2 4 0 454 0 2 177 463 878 294 1 2 97
0 18 0 452432 29404 228 1 3 2 324 633 2 184 472 842 305 2 4 94
0 19 0 449724 21860 200 14 6 0 508 0 1 188 473 702 283 0 2 98
disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
when fts.postgresql.org was slow.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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 :(I see on db.postgresql.org
vmstat -w 5
procs memory page disks faults cpu
r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id
0 17 0 471224 28184 369 3 4 2 325 334 0 0 331 401 182 29 2 690 19 0 414556 19272 644 1 1 0 546 0 0 172 461 823 290 1 2 97
1 19 0 414788 23940 459 4 4 1 474 615 1 170 454 734 286 0 2 98
1 20 0 428592 26912 372 3 14 0 433 592 6 182 480 790 296 1 2 97
2 19 0 458688 30164 318 3 9 0 423 592 3 177 463 787 289 1 2 97
1 17 0 446848 24196 303 2 4 0 454 0 2 177 463 878 294 1 2 97
0 18 0 452432 29404 228 1 3 2 324 633 2 184 472 842 305 2 4 94
0 19 0 449724 21860 200 14 6 0 508 0 1 188 473 702 283 0 2 98disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
when fts.postgresql.org was slow.
Most of it is due to the high swap being used .. I've had two offers so
far to help upgrade the RAM, and am looking into the costs of doing so ...
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
- Thomas
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.
- Thomas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
Count me in.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
server is at rackspace in San Antonio, Tx ... and am looking into it ...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
Show quoted text
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
- Thomas
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.
the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
What kind of server? What kind of RAM? If it is an x86 BOX I have some
PC100 256M simms.
If you are looking for a server, I might be able to convince my company
(www.dmn.com) to donate an dual PIII 650.
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...
Again, I'd prefer to have a separate machine dedicated for fts project.
I don't like to work in 'jail' bsdish environment :-)
Currently I see, for example, ftpd process eats about 10hours ! of CPU,
keep in mind the server rebooted only 2 days ago !
Disk activity is very high ! There are only 2 disks ..
simple select from table with 10 records takes about 10 seconds !
Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
to mysql website :-(
In my opinion, simple PIII server: 1Gb ram, 3 HD (SCSI) ( system, db, web )
would be enough for fts.postgresql.org.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
[snip]
Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
to mysql website :-(
I agree. It is bad form.
Perhaps Red Hat or SRA would be able to help out?
Gavin
mlw wrote:
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
What kind of server? What kind of RAM? If it is an x86 BOX I have some
PC100 256M simms.If you are looking for a server, I might be able to convince my company
(www.dmn.com) to donate an dual PIII 650
We have an Intel Motherboard Dual PIII 650, 2U rack mount server. 512MRAM, but
I'm sure I can scrounge 1G. It has 1 18G IBM SCSI Hard disk, but two built in
SCSI controllers. One LVD one SE. Built in Intel nic. (I wouldn't trust the
disk because it has had a year of service.)
Does postgresql.org need such a box? If so, let me know.
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, mlw wrote:
We have an Intel Motherboard Dual PIII 650, 2U rack mount server. 512MRAM, but
I'm sure I can scrounge 1G. It has 1 18G IBM SCSI Hard disk, but two built in
SCSI controllers. One LVD one SE. Built in Intel nic. (I wouldn't trust the
disk because it has had a year of service.)Does postgresql.org need such a box? If so, let me know.
Thanks,
It's Marc's decision but for dedicated server it'd be ok even with
512 Mb RAM (of course more memory would be nice). I wrote about
3 hard drives, but in minimal configuration we need separate HD
for database + HD for system and web stuff (2*18Gb SCSI look fine)
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
Just as an FYI, the server is to be upgraded from 512Meg to 4GB over the
next few days ... thanks to everyone that offered to help spring for this,
but Rackspace is only charging us a very small amount to perform the
upgrade itself, with the RAM not costing a thing ...
As for a seperate machine for fts ... I'm in the process of trying to get
a second machine for Hub, since our first machine is just about at
capacity ... it will have 4GB of RAM on her and 7x18Gig RAID5 SCSI ... at
that time, I will move the db.postgresql.org server onto it, so that the
database is on a seperate machine from the web server itself ... I assume
that should help, just a little?
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
Show quoted text
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade? The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...
Again, I'd prefer to have a separate machine dedicated for fts project.
I don't like to work in 'jail' bsdish environment :-)
Currently I see, for example, ftpd process eats about 10hours ! of CPU,
keep in mind the server rebooted only 2 days ago !
Disk activity is very high ! There are only 2 disks ..
simple select from table with 10 records takes about 10 seconds !
Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
to mysql website :-(In my opinion, simple PIII server: 1Gb ram, 3 HD (SCSI) ( system, db, web )
would be enough for fts.postgresql.org.---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanlyRegards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time. In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings). Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?
regards, tom lane
We're going from 512Meg -> 4GB ... most of the issues right now are swap
related ... that machine is just swapping like crazy ...
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Show quoted text
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time. In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings). Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?regards, tom lane
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time. In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings). Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?
Yes.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
We're going from 512Meg -> 4GB ... most of the issues right now are swap
related ... that machine is just swapping like crazy ...
not so much right nmow. I think Marc just have no time to administrate
this machine. I wrote already about ftpd process which eats all CPU and
CPU time.
last pid: 26390; load averages: 1.36, 1.46, 1.37 up 2+14:36:51 00:27:27
268 processes: 5 running, 261 sleeping, 2 zombie
CPU states: 50.3% user, 0.0% nice, 1.7% system, 0.0% interrupt, 48.0% idle
Mem: 258M Active, 93M Inact, 80M Wired, 27M Cache, 61M Buf, 42M Free
Swap: 1024M Total, 137M Used, 887M Free, 13% Inuse
PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND
2986 root 56 0 812K 328K CPU1 0 31.4H 99.02% 99.02% ftpd
26376 robot 30 0 2232K 1316K CPU0 1 0:00 1.88% 0.34% top
Awfull.
w
12:28AM up 2 days, 14:37, 2 users, load averages: 1.33, 1.44, 1.37
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
From 2 days online 'ftpd' eats 31 hours of CPU !
Also there are many issues I usually expect from system+db administrators.
So , I don't think adding a lot of RAM will help until such things like
crazy process eating CPU, everything live in one HD
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time. In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings). Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Wed, 2002-01-09 at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote:
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time. In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings). Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?
There are also problems, IMHO, with the mail->Usenet gateway: I've just
resubscribed to the list since there are only an handful of messages on
news.postgresql.org, and that's been a constant since mid-December.
--
Alessio F. Bragadini alessio@albourne.com
APL Financial Services http://village.albourne.com
Nicosia, Cyprus phone: +357-22-755750
"It is more complicated than you think"
-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925