[BUGS] insert statement going into infinite loop

2010-12-24 Thread Trimurthulu Bandaru
Hi everybody..
I have table with 11 attributes, 6 of them refers different tables and
having one primary key.
when I am trying to insert row with 121 key value, its going into
infinite loop..
I didnt find any error in table definition and no foreign key
violations..
Can you please help me in this issue..
I am thinking its a bug in postgres..
Can you make clear in this issue..

thank you..


-- 
with best
 --Trim..


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] insert statement going into infinite loop

2010-12-24 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Trimurthulu Bandaru
 wrote:
> Hi everybody..
> I have table with 11 attributes, 6 of them refers different tables and
> having one primary key.
> when I am trying to insert row with 121 key value, its going into
> infinite loop..

define "infinite loop", the truth is that you're giving almost no
information so all we can try now is to guess and cross fingers ;)

are you describing that the INSERT never finishes?
if so, maybe the table is locked... you can know that by looking in
pg_stat_activity view and find your statement in the field
current_query and see the field waiting, if is true then the statement
is locked waiting for something...
or you can see the pg_locks view where relation = 'your_table'::regclass

another posibility is that you have a trigger in the table after or
before insert and then inside the trigger inserting a new value on the
same table forcing a new execution of the trigger making it
recursive...

> I am thinking its a bug in postgres..

it's too early to blame postgres

-- 
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL

-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] insert statement going into infinite loop

2010-12-24 Thread Craig Ringer

On 12/24/2010 10:57 PM, Trimurthulu Bandaru wrote:

Hi everybody..
I have table with 11 attributes, 6 of them refers different tables and
having one primary key.
when I am trying to insert row with 121 key value, its going into
infinite loop..


Do you have any triggers on the table?

Can you produce a single .sql file that creates the tables and does the 
problem insert?


--
Craig Ringer

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] memory leaks? using savepoint

2010-12-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> So if we take the complaint seriously, we'd better patch 8.2 as well.

I'm sort of inclined to think we should take the complaint seriously.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs


Re: [BUGS] BUG #5781: unaccent() function should be marked IMMUTABLE

2010-12-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Bruce Momjian  wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Grant Hutchins and Peter Jaros"  writes:
>> > The unaccent(text) function supplied by contrib/unaccent is marked 
>> > VOLATILE.
>> > This prevents it from being used in indexes. We believe that the function
>> > meets the requirements to be marked IMMUTABLE.
>>
>> No, it most certainly doesn't.  It depends on the behavior of a
>> dictionary that it has no hard-wired connection to, so the specific
>> behavior of the dictionary is uncertain.  Even if you're willing to
>> assume that the dictionary being used is the one defined by this
>> module, that dictionary depends on external configuration files
>> which are easily changeable.
>>
>> Arguably it'd be reasonable to change the function's marking from
>> volatile to stable, but that's not going to be enough to allow use in
>> indexes.
>
> So, should we change unaccent() from VOLATILE to STABLE?

Sounds like it, but it doesn't sound like it will help much.  :-(

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs