Giorgio Valoti wrote:
> Hi,
> I’m forwarding this mail exchange with Peter Eisentraut to the bugs
> list.
> pgSQL version: 8.4
> OS: Mac OS X 10.5.8
I can reproduce this, and the reason seems to be the same problem we
fixed in core XML and that Tom was saying a couple of days ago that was
present
Is there a workaround?
To us this is pretty bad news; we receive updates from several partners and
constantly update the counts like in the example I sent you...
Obviously we can serialize the updates but that would be pretty sad thing to do
in a database.
Realistically - when will we see this
"Dan Boeriu" writes:
> Attached is the reproducible test case - I was able to reproduce the problem
> on 32 and 64 bit 8.3.6 and 8.4.0 RedHat 5.3 kernel 2.6.18-128.1.16.el5 #1 SMP
I looked at this a bit. It's the same issue discussed at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-09/msg00045
2009/7/30 Tom Lane :
> Jaime Casanova writes:
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Alvaro
Getting rid of the check on natts was "ungood" ... it needs to compare
the number of undropped columns of both tupdescs.
>
>> patch attached
>
> This patch is *still* introducing more bugs than it
Hi,
I’m forwarding this mail exchange with Peter Eisentraut to the bugs
list.
pgSQL version: 8.4
OS: Mac OS X 10.5.8
Let me know any needed additional detail or how I can help, thank you
in advance.
Da: Peter Eisentraut
Data: 29 luglio 2009 21:43:10 GMT+02:00
A: Giorgio Valoti
Oggetto:
Jaime Casanova writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Alvaro
>>> Getting rid of the check on natts was "ungood" ... it needs to compare
>>> the number of undropped columns of both tupdescs.
> patch attached
This patch is *still* introducing more bugs than it fixes. The reason
is that it h
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4955
Logged by: Heiko Folkerts
Email address: heiko.folke...@david-bs.de
PostgreSQL version: 8.4
Operating system: Windows XP
Description:ECPG produces incomplete code
Details:
When compiling the following cod
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Steve Caligo
> wrote:
>> 2) FIRST TRY, USING "UPDATE WHERE ID = ( SELECT )"
>> The goal is to have two clients set their unique ID to a
>> single/different
>> row from the table. First, using "limit" in a slightly different way:
> This is pretty clearly NOT the
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Caligo wrote:
> Allowing FOR UPDATE in sub-queries has been rejected in this same thread,
> you've also mentioned it your previous reply.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2004-10/msg00150.php
Um, I didn't write that email. That was Tom Lane.
>> T
