Re: [BUGS] stable vs. immutable unaccent function

2013-05-05 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Thangalin wrote: > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION unaccent_text(text) > -- unaccent is STABLE, but the indexes must use IMMUTABLE functions. > -- comment this line out when calling pg_dump. The fact that someone wrote such a comment should be a clue that it's a ha

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6751: usage flaws in pg_restore

2012-07-31 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, wrote: > We've been using PostgreSQL for years now. > It's great. > Only the usage of pg_restore is annoying > (Version 8.3 to 9.1 tested). > Given Answer: > pg_restore: [archiver] input file does not appear to be a valid archive This has already been fixed. Po

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6550: Querry failed while using throung php program.

2012-03-22 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:00, wrote: > LINE 1: select * from variety_dir where crop_cd= and variety_cd=1 You're missing a value for the crop_cd= clause. This error is supposed to occur. > Query works from SQL Screen. When uses through php it fails. You probably executed a different query from

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6513: explain (analyze, buffers) and toasted fields

2012-03-12 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 17:23, Tom Lane wrote: > EXPLAIN ANALYZE *necessarily* does less work than the real query, > because it doesn't transmit the results to the client (which is going > to be a dominant cost in a lot of situations).  I'm not sure whether > running the I/O functions would provid

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6489: Alter table with composite type/table

2012-02-28 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 15:23, wrote: > This works: > alter table t1 add x float not null; > This doesn't work: > alter table t1 add x float not null default 0; > It fails with ERROR:  cannot alter table "t1" because column "t2.j" uses its > row type > But I would expect second alter to pass and

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6483: Rows being evaluated, although being outside the LIMIT / OFFSET boundaries

2012-02-22 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 23:40, Tom Lane wrote: > Marti Raudsepp writes: >> According to this model, evaluating SELECT clause fields for *all* >> found rows is done in step 5, whereas LIMIT/OFFSET are only applied >> later at step 9. So we're already bending the rules he

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6483: Rows being evaluated, although being outside the LIMIT / OFFSET boundaries

2012-02-22 Thread Marti Raudsepp
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 20:53, wrote: > -- shows a notice for 1, 2, 3 and 4 > SELECT x.id, f(x) FROM xxx as x LIMIT 2 OFFSET 2; Currently the way to fix this is to use a subquery that acts as an optimization barrier in the presence of OFFSET: SELECT x.id, f(x) FROM (SELECT * FROM xxx as x LIMIT

[BUGS] BUG #3888: postmaster: misleading error message for illegal -B values

2008-01-20 Thread Marti Raudsepp
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3888 Logged by: Marti Raudsepp Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.3RC1 Operating system: Linux AMD64 Description:postmaster: misleading error message for illegal -B values Details: When