Re: [BUGS] BUG #7744: docs should link to postgresql_psycopg2

2012-12-11 Thread Magnus Hagander 
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM,   wrote:>
The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference:  7744
> Logged by:  Chris Jerdonek
> Email address:  chris.jerdo...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.2
> Operating system:   Mac OS X
> Description:
>
> This section of the docs:
>
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.4/topics/install/#get-your-database-running
>
> should provide the official link to postgresql_psycopg2.

This clearly sounds like you're reporting a problem with the django
website and documentation - you should contact the django project
people, not us.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


-- 
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] error

2012-12-11 Thread Magnus Hagander 
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Abhishek Ramkumar
 wrote:
> hello
> every time  i try to restore a file to the database i get the following
> error
>
>
> C:/Program Files/PostgreSQL/8.4/bin\pg_restore.exe --host localhost --port
> 5432 --username postgres --dbname anchor --verbose "C:\Documents and
> Settings\parnitas\Desktop\anchor_07dec2012.backup"
> pg_restore: [archiver] unsupported version (1.12) in file header
>   kindly advice how to resolve the above error

Your dump is generated with pg_dump version 9.0 or newer. You cannot
restore that with pg_restore version 8.4, you need to use at least the
same version as the one you created the dump with.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


-- 
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 #7738: Installer takes hours running icacls

2012-12-11 Thread Guy Incognito 
it's not the same, my data is on drive D:, the script only checks for C: 
(the system drive).  so basically if i put the data anywhere but 
somewhere under C:\Program Files, it's going to try and alter the 
security on every folder within that tree, starting from the root, and 
if on a non-system drive, including the root too.


On 10/12/2012 08:57, Sandeep Thakkar wrote:

This was reported in #7628 and was fixed in initcluster.vbs.

Please send the installation logs (install-postgresql) from your 
system temp.


On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM, > wrote:


The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:  7738
Logged by:  dnd
Email address: dnd1...@gmail.com 
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.2
Operating system:   Windows 8
Description:

The installer is trying to change access permissions on every
directory in
the drive where i've put the data directory, which is not the
system drive.



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




--
Sandeep Thakkar
Senior Software Engineer
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise Postgres Company
Phone: +91.20.30589514

Website: www.enterprisedb.com 
EnterpriseDB Blog: http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/
Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/enterprisedb

This e-mail message (and any attachment) is intended for the use of 
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This message 
contains information from EnterpriseDB Corporation that may be 
privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable 
law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive 
this for the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, 
retention, archiving, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.




install-postgresql.log.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

-- 
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 #7750: pid file conflict in RedHat

2012-12-11 Thread Bruce Momjian 
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 06:41:29PM +, postg...@tbruce.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
> 
> Bug reference:  7750
> Logged by:  Timothy J Bruce
> Email address:  postg...@tbruce.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.6
> Operating system:   RedHat v6.2
> Description:
> 
> In line 238 of the rpm based init.d script, the pid file is called
> specifically with a qualified path ("status -p
> /var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid"), even though line 70 specifies a variable to
> point to the pid file (pidfile="/var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid").
> 
> This is with rpm version of postgres 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 (we haven't tested
> 9.1.7 at this time).

I think you need to report this to Red Hat;  we didn't create that file.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


-- 
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] Regarding Postgresql is not working in windows8 environment ..!

2012-12-11 Thread Kevin Grittner 
Sumit kumar sharma wrote:

> I have downloaded 9.2 version but I am unable to install postgres
> sql in windows 8 please fix it as soon as possible.

Please provide details.

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems

-Kevin


-- 
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 #7750: pid file conflict in RedHat

2012-12-11 Thread Tom Lane 
Bruce Momjian  writes:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 06:41:29PM +, postg...@tbruce.com wrote:
>> In line 238 of the rpm based init.d script, the pid file is called
>> specifically with a qualified path ("status -p
>> /var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid"), even though line 70 specifies a variable to
>> point to the pid file (pidfile="/var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid").
>> 
>> This is with rpm version of postgres 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 (we haven't tested
>> 9.1.7 at this time).

> I think you need to report this to Red Hat;  we didn't create that file.

Red Hat didn't either.  This report is evidently about the PGDG RPMs.

regards, tom lane


-- 
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 #7750: pid file conflict in RedHat

2012-12-11 Thread Bruce Momjian 
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:28:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 06:41:29PM +, postg...@tbruce.com wrote:
> >> In line 238 of the rpm based init.d script, the pid file is called
> >> specifically with a qualified path ("status -p
> >> /var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid"), even though line 70 specifies a variable to
> >> point to the pid file (pidfile="/var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid").
> >> 
> >> This is with rpm version of postgres 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 (we haven't tested
> >> 9.1.7 at this time).
> 
> > I think you need to report this to Red Hat;  we didn't create that file.
> 
> Red Hat didn't either.  This report is evidently about the PGDG RPMs.

Yes, I have found it is a PGDG RPM and forwarded it to Devrim.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


-- 
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 #7750: pid file conflict in RedHat

2012-12-11 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ 

Hi,

On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 18:41 +, postg...@tbruce.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
> 
> Bug reference:  7750
> Logged by:  Timothy J Bruce
> Email address:  postg...@tbruce.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.6
> Operating system:   RedHat v6.2
> Description:
> 
> In line 238 of the rpm based init.d script, the pid file is called
> specifically with a qualified path ("status -p
> /var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid"), even though line 70 specifies a variable to
> point to the pid file (pidfile="/var/run/postmaster-9.1.pid").

Last time I checked (it might be an older version of RHEL), status()
could not use the $pidfile effectively, that's why I did not put it
there. Looks like it is doable now .

Created http://wiki.pgrpms.org/ticket/87 for this. This change will be
available in next patch release.

Regards,
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org  Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7748: "drop owned by" fails with error message: "unrecognized object class: 1262"

2012-12-11 Thread Jeff Janes 
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Jaime Casanova  wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>  wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> spam_ea...@gmx.net writes:
>>> > postgres=# create user testuser with password 'secret';
>>> > CREATE ROLE
>>> > postgres=# create database testdb owner testuser;
>>> > CREATE DATABASE
>>> > testdb=> drop owned by testuser;
>>> > ERROR:  unrecognized object class: 1262
>>>
>>> I can reproduce this in all versions back to 8.3.  In 8.2, the role's
>>> ownership of the database is silently ignored, which I think was the
>>> design intention.  I doubt that we want DROP OWNED dropping whole
>>> databases.  At most maybe we should raise a NOTICE?
>>
>> I broke it recently: fe3b5eb08
>>
>
> whatever is the right way to solve this... shouldn't we do something
> similar in shdepReassignOwned() in which we are still ignoring shared
> objects?

Based on the commit message, it seems like it should *only* be in
shdepReassignOwned.

However, when I put it there it fails, as the code that does the
ownership change cannot deal with tablespaces (or databases)

ERROR:  unexpected classid 1213

I am unsure of the goal here.  The docs clearly say that only objects
in the current database are affected, so why are we even trying to do
something with tablespaces (or databases), which do not live in any
database?  And if we want to change the contract to allow it to climb
out of the current database, why limit it to shared objects rather
than crawling all databases?

Cheers,

Jeff


-- 
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 #7748: "drop owned by" fails with error message: "unrecognized object class: 1262"

2012-12-11 Thread Jaime Casanova 
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Janes  wrote:
>
> I am unsure of the goal here.  The docs clearly say that only objects
> in the current database are affected, so why are we even trying to do
> something with tablespaces (or databases), which do not live in any
> database?  And if we want to change the contract to allow it to climb
> out of the current database, why limit it to shared objects rather
> than crawling all databases?
>

ok. you're right, what i suggested before of making something similar
on DROP ASSIGNED is actually a violation of the POLA.
about your question, i guess the compromise Álvaro was taken here is
to affect all objects that could be *seen* from this database you
can't climb to other objects in other databases because they can't be
seen.

--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
Phone: +593 4 5107566 Cell: +593 987171157


-- 
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 #7744: docs should link to postgresql_psycopg2

2012-12-11 Thread Chris Jerdonek 
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM,   wrote:>
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference:  7744
>> Logged by:  Chris Jerdonek
>> Email address:  chris.jerdo...@gmail.com
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.2
>> Operating system:   Mac OS X
>> Description:
>>
>> This section of the docs:
>>
>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.4/topics/install/#get-your-database-running
>>
>> should provide the official link to postgresql_psycopg2.
>
> This clearly sounds like you're reporting a problem with the django
> website and documentation - you should contact the django project
> people, not us.

Sorry about that, and thanks for letting me know.  I was in a rush
when I reported this.  I will pass along to the Django group.

--Chris


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

[BUGS] BUG #7751: libintl.h missing in the include folder

2012-12-11 Thread ktuszynska 
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:  7751
Logged by:  Kasia Tuszynska
Email address:  ktuszyn...@esri.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.2
Operating system:   Windows 2008 R2
Description:

Installation of PostgreSQL 9.2.2 with the One Click installer, downloaded
from EnterpriseDB.

Installing an re-installing does not seem to populate the include folder
with the libintl.h file.
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.2\include 

Installations of PostgreSQL 9.1.3 and PostgerSQL 9.0.5 on Windows 2008 R2
machines, with the one click installer from Enterprise DB does result in a
libintl.h file int the include folder.



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

[BUGS] BUG #7752: FATAL btree error on PITR

2012-12-11 Thread m . sakrejda 
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:  7752
Logged by:  Maciek Sakrejda
Email address:  m.sakre...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.6
Operating system:   Ubuntu 10.04 LTS 64-bit
Description:

Ran into the following error in trying to perform a PITR:

FATAL:  btree level 66135134 not found in index "436254"

This happened when the PITR was almost complete (judging by on-disk database
size). I guess this may be related to one of the index corruption issues
fixed in 9.1.7, but if that's the case, would it perhaps make sense to
complete the PITR without the corrupt index(es) and deal with the index
issue separately? Clearly, just a warning is dangerously likely to be
skipped, but maybe a mechanism like backup_label, that prevents normal
startup before the issue is resolved?



-- 
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] init_htab causes SIGFPE (or worse) due to miscalculation for large nbuckets

2012-12-11 Thread Tom Lane 
Jeff Davis  writes:
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 21:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I hadn't gone any further than to code and test the functions I listed.
>> If you are working on a complete patch, please press on.

> Attached. This fixes my test case[1] and uses the functions that you
> wrote. I made them static because I couldn't think of a reason for
> something outside to call them.

Applied with minor adjustments.

regards, tom lane


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