On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Eric Borts wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 3:02 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Dharmendra Goyal
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice analysis Eric. ANy idea why (which program set this) this particular
>>> registry was set.
>>>
>>> Dave, shall we conside
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:01 AM, wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 6404
> Logged by: Mark Phillips
> Email address: mark.phill...@mophilly.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
> Operating system: Mac OS X 10.7
> Description:
>
> for a st
y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp writes:
> the following patch fixes/updates/adds random comments in the tree.
Applied, thanks.
BTW, it took some manual effort to undo the line-wrapping that got done
on this posting. It'd be better to send patches directly to the
pgsql-hackers mailing list so you can appe
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> In proc.h, it says:
> "Prior to PostgreSQL 9.2, the fieds below "
> This is obviously a typo, and should read "the fields below".
Fixed, thanks.
> It's difficult to know where I should be drawing the line with this
> stuff. Should I continue to report trivialities like
On 29 January 2012 23:47, Josh Berkus wrote:
> This is *so* not a discussion to have on the pgsql-bugs list. Please
> take it to -hackers.
I suppose you're right, since the first discussion occurred there and
didn't really go anywhere.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postg
>>> What I think we want to distinguish between is things that are
>>> PEBKAC/GIGO, and everything else. In other words, if a particular
>>> error message can be caused by typing something stupid, unexpected,
>>> erroneous, or whatever into psql, it's just an error. But if no
>>> input, however
In proc.h, it says:
"Prior to PostgreSQL 9.2, the fieds below "
This is obviously a typo, and should read "the fields below".
I recently started to take the precaution of running an American
English spell checker over my code before submitting patches - the vim
one works rather well here, though
On 29 January 2012 21:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Is it really that much of a problem to create a new severity level for
> this stuff?
I should probably have quoted this refinement, which was part of the
discussion that I originally quoted Robert from:
On 24 November 2011 16:55, Alvaro Herrera
Matteo Beccati writes:
>> I've just noticed that an expression index I've created was not used with a
>> view contiaining a UNION ALL. Switching to UNION or querying the table
>> directly works as expected.
Looks like I broke this back in November :-(. Fixed, thanks for the
report.
On 29 January 2012 20:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like a lot of make-work. The fact that it's got an XX000 SQLSTATE
> is already sufficient confirmation that the problem is an internal one,
> if the DBA isn't sure about that already.
I'm not worried about the DBA not being able to figure that ou
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>>> ERROR: could not find plan for CTE
>> Fixed, thanks for
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On 29 January 2012 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Huh? I don't follow you at all Peter.
> I mean that we should change code like this:
> elog(ERROR, "could not find plan for CTE \"%s\"", rte->ctename)
> to this:
> elog(INTERNAL_ERROR, "could not find plan for CTE \"%s\""
On 29 January 2012 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of thing that could go unnoticed for a long time,
>> simply because it is not highlighted any more prominently than a
>> routine error message like an integrity constraint violation. I
>> continue to maintain that we should have a
> This is the kind of thing that could go unnoticed for a long time,
> simply because it is not highlighted any more prominently than a
> routine error message like an integrity constraint violation. I
> continue to maintain that we should have a new severity level for this
> sort of thing.
Huh?
On 29 January 2012 20:06, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>>> ERROR: could not find plan
On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>> ERROR: could not find plan for CTE
>
> Fixed, thanks for the report.
Should w
On 29/01/2012 16:06, p...@beccati.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 6416
> Logged by: Matteo Beccati
> Email address: p...@beccati.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
> Operating system: Debian Sqeeze
> Description:
>
> I've
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 6416
Logged by: Matteo Beccati
Email address: p...@beccati.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
Operating system: Debian Sqeeze
Description:
I've just noticed that an expression index I've created was not used
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Dharmendra Goyal
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Eric Borts wrote:
>>
>> The installation now runs successfully after deleting that registry key.
>>
>> In addition, I tried changing the default action on batch files from
>> "Open" to "Edit" using the
19 matches
Mail list logo
