On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> I agree, and see Tom does too in a nearby post. Do you want to propose
> some wording, or just leave it up to me?
You do it, and I'll just complain later if I don't like it :-)
I still think it's a strange behaviour, but as long as it's documented
it's
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:42:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It would seem that the culprit must be somewhere in the 7.3.2-to-7.3.4
> changes in xlog.c:
> ...
> but I sure don't see anything there that looks like a potential
> portability issue.
I have some further info. 7.3.5 compiled with MIPSpr
Craig Ruff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to use 7.3.5 (for an upgrade of 7.3.2) on Irix 6.5.18 using the
> MIPSpro 7.4.1 compiler. Everything compiles up ok, but 'make check' fails
> at the "enabling unlimited row size for system tables..." step with
> a core dump of postgres.
Hmm, har
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
Additionally, this behavior was discussed during the 7.4 development and
beta cycles on at least a couple occassions -- that would have been the
time to complain, not now.
Well, I will complain whenever I see something I don't like :-
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the documentation I got the impression that NULL values inside an array
> was not allowed. Now I know that you are allowed to form such an
> expression and that it evaluates to the NULL array. The documentation
> should be fixed then (or maybe it is
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> Additionally, this behavior was discussed during the 7.4 development and
> beta cycles on at least a couple occassions -- that would have been the
> time to complain, not now.
Well, I will complain whenever I see something I don't like :-) Just
because
I'm trying to use 7.3.5 (for an upgrade of 7.3.2) on Irix 6.5.18 using the
MIPSpro 7.4.1 compiler. Everything compiles up ok, but 'make check' fails
at the "enabling unlimited row size for system tables..." step with
a core dump of postgres.
The failure is at /backend/access/transam/xlog.c:2544 w
Tom Lane wrote:
As we used to say at HP, this is not a bug, it's a definition
disagreement. You need to give a coherent argument why we should
change, not just claim it's wrong.
Additionally, this behavior was discussed during the 7.4 development and
beta cycles on at least a couple occassions --
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> > dennis=# INSERT INTO foo VALUES (ARRAY[2,NULL]);
> > INSERT 25353 1
>
> > That last insert contains a NULL value which are not allowed in arrays and
> > yet a insert is performed. The table contains a NULL value afterwards
> > (and no array).
>
> As we u
On Thursday 15 January 2004 15:25, you wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm not sure what state of play is here?
>
> Are you saying this is intended behavour and therefore not a bug, in
> which case I'll implement one of the work around solutions rather than
> wait for a patch that prevents inva
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> dennis=# INSERT INTO foo VALUES (ARRAY[2,NULL]);
> INSERT 25353 1
> That last insert contains a NULL value which are not allowed in arrays and
> yet a insert is performed. The table contains a NULL value afterwards
> (and no array).
As we used to sa
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> A person (cross) in the irc channel
Actually, he calls himself crass which is the only name I have :-)
Not very important, but I like things to be correct (when I can).
--
/Dennis Björklund
---(end of broadcast)--
A person (cross) in the irc channel have found a bug with the new arrays.
Here is what I did to reproduce:
dennis=# CREATE TABLE foo (a int[]);
CREATE TABLE
dennis=# INSERT INTO foo VALUES (ARRAY[2,NULL]);
INSERT 25353 1
That last insert contains a NULL value which are not allowed in arrays and
O kyrios Kris Jurka egrapse stis Jan 15, 2004 :
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, altho not a bug (actually i think its a fix),
> > the change of the behaviour should be listed in
> > JDBC changes in the pgsql4.1 README file.
>
> What readme file? pgsql4.1?
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
>
> Well, altho not a bug (actually i think its a fix),
> the change of the behaviour should be listed in
> JDBC changes in the pgsql4.1 README file.
What readme file? pgsql4.1? Could you be more clear on what the problem
is and where it is?
Kri
Well, altho not a bug (actually i think its a fix),
the change of the behaviour should be listed in
JDBC changes in the pgsql4.1 README file.
(Its the first time i actually read every single line
of the README and i failed to locate the point that
was supposed to give me trouble).
--
-Achilleu
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, PostgreSQL Bugs List wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> PostgreSQL version: 7.4
>
> Operating system: FreeBSD 5.1
>
> Description:error connection to dbms from java app server
>
>
> I get an error from Jboss app server when trying to connect t
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Martin Holz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> org.postgresql.jdbc1.AbstractJdbc1Statement.setBinaryStream()
> in postgresql 7.4.1 wrongly assumes, that
> java.io.InputStream.read(byte[] b,int offset,int len )
> will always read len bytes. InputStream only guarantees to
> return at least 1
18 matches
Mail list logo
