Disregard my bug complaint. Stupid user error.
Thanks,
Regina
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>> "Paragon Corporation" writes:
>>> I assumed that the :
>>> pg_catalog.pg_extension_config_dump
>>> Calls would overwrite each subsequent for a given object for a given
>>> extension. So I have that in my upgrade script as well should we a
but
same issue happens on my mingw dev install (which is running 9.2.1)
I have the backtrace for that on this ticket:
http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/1959
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Andres Freund
Cc:
ssage-
From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@2ndquadrant.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:11 AM
To: Paragon Corporation
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7756: When upgrading postgis extension get row is
too big: size 9272, maximum size 8160
Hi,
On 2012-12-17 10:06:53
Andres,
Sorry not sure why I didn't think of that.
The more descriptive error it gives in logs is:
2012-12-17 09:15:10 EST LOG: statement:
SET log_error_verbosity = 'verbose';
2012-12-17 09:15:13 EST LOG: 0: statement: ALTER EXTENSION postgis
UPDATE TO "2.1.0SVN";
2012-12
Tom,
Okay understood. We had planned to do something along this line of having a
where condition for the extension or putting the custom spatial_ref_sys in a
separate table but hand't decided which way to go. So that will take care of
the handling custom records issue.
So I guess the more major
In regression testing PostGIS 2.0, our topology module regression tests are
failing in PostgreSQL 9.1 beta.
We have a PostGIS ticket open for it here, but we suspect it's a PostgreSQL
9.1 bug and would like to close it out.
http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/980
Our domain type is defined as:
Magnus and Craig,
Thanks for the help. We upgraded and also put in the patch and things have
been running for about a week now with all that in place. The reattach
memory problem seems to have been cured by the patch.
Unfortunately the System.OutOfMemory from .NET and the LOG: could not
receiv
Craig,
Thanks. I assume you mean this one?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01419.php
I'll check with them to see if its okay if we give this a try.
Thanks,
Regina
-Original Message-
From: Craig Ringer [mailto:cr...@postnewspapers.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August
