Greg Stark writes:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
>> That sounds correct on first reading.
> Doesn't this depend on the semantics of
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about this. Is it okay to suppose that collation
>> can be ignored when matching to a collation-less index?
>
> That sounds correct on first reading.
>
Doesn't this depend on the semantics of the ? operator?
Hypothe
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6234
Logged by: Vikas Mehta
Email address: me...@roguewave.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.8
Operating system: Windows
Description:Memory leak from PQexec
Details:
Purify shows 448 bytes of memory leaks with PQexe
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6233
Logged by: Holec
Email address: ho...@email.cz
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.8
Operating system: Windows 7
Description:pg_dump hangs with Access Violation C005
Details:
I use pg_dump on Windows 7 with:
pg_d
On ons, 2011-09-28 at 22:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pierre Ducroquet" writes:
> > [ the "hstore ? text" operator no longer matches an hstore GIST index ]
>
> Hmm ... this doesn't seem to be specific to either hstore or GIST; it's
> a collation problem. The index is marked as having no collatio
"Pierre Ducroquet" writes:
> [ the "hstore ? text" operator no longer matches an hstore GIST index ]
Hmm ... this doesn't seem to be specific to either hstore or GIST; it's
a collation problem. The index is marked as having no collation, which
is reasonable since hstore is a collation-less type.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 6232
> Logged by: Pierre Ducroquet
> Email address: p.p...@pinaraf.info
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
> Operating system: Linux Debian, amd64
> Description:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6232
Logged by: Pierre Ducroquet
Email address: p.p...@pinaraf.info
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
Operating system: Linux Debian, amd64
Description:hstore operator ? no longer uses indexes
Details:
The following c
Josh Kupershmidt writes:
>> Excerpts from depstein's message of mié sep 28 07:21:17 -0300 2011:
>>> Anyway, the procedure that we used (based on
>>> http://en.dklab.ru/lib/dklab_postgresql_enum/) does the necessary
>>> checks before removing enum values.
> Not exactly; that code is rife with race
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from depstein's message of mié sep 28 07:21:17 -0300 2011:
>>> ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE does not work inside transaction blocks, period,
>>> whether they are executed as a multi-command string or one query at
"Henk Enting" writes:
> I would expect the to_timestamp function to return an error when I feed it
> out of range values, e.g. months > 13 and days > 31. Instead it seems to add
> the surplus to the timestamp and then return it.
What is your reason for using to_timestamp at all? The timestamp in
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from depstein's message of mié sep 28 07:21:17 -0300 2011:
>> Anyway, the procedure that we used (based on
>> http://en.dklab.ru/lib/dklab_postgresql_enum/) does the necessary
>> checks before removing enum values.
Not exactly; th
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from depstein's message of mié sep 28 07:21:17 -0300 2011:
>> ALTER TYPE ... ADD VALUE does not work inside transaction blocks, period,
>> whether they are executed as a multi-command string or one query at a time.
>> Try it:
> The reason it is not allowed is
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6231
Logged by: Henk Enting
Email address: h.d.ent...@mgrid.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.1
Operating system: linux x86_64
Description:weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values
Details:
I would expec
Excerpts from depstein's message of mié sep 28 07:21:17 -0300 2011:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:31 PM
> > > 1. We can use ALTER TYPE to add enum values, but there is no matching
> > command to remove v
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:21 AM, wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:31 PM
>> > 1. We can use ALTER TYPE to add enum values, but there is no matching
>> command to remove values, which makes this an incom
> -Original Message-
> From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:31 PM
> > 1. We can use ALTER TYPE to add enum values, but there is no matching
> command to remove values, which makes this an incomplete solution.
>
> you can manually delete fr
17 matches
Mail list logo
