W dniu 2013-07-06 23:22, Tom Lane pisze:
lind...@gmail.com writes:
I wanted to report an incorrect execution of the query SELECT DISTINCT... :
FWIW, this example doesn't seem to misbehave for me in HEAD or 9.2
branch tip. I suspect that this is a variant of bug #8049, which was
fixed recently.
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 8287
Logged by: Jacek
Email address: lind...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
Operating system: Debian x64 / Windows 8 x64
Description:
I wanted to report an incorrect execution of the query SELECT DI
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 8025
Logged by: lindebg
Email address: lind...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.3
Operating system: Linux 64 bit (Debian, Gentoo), Windows 8 64 bit
Description:
Happened to me a failure of PostgreSQL
On 11/19/2011 04:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Color me skeptical. Under what conceivable use-case could you have
functions that were mutually dependent in that way? And actually did
something useful (not recurse till stack overflow) when called?
regards, tom lane
Does this
On 11/19/2011 12:19 AM, lind...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks, in this case works :-) However, this does not solve all cases.
> Unlikely, but possible to create, cyclic case can not be restored:
>
Another example with more functions:
$ psql
create database test;
\connect test
create function fn1
Thanks, in this case works :-) However, this does not solve all cases.
Unlikely, but possible to create, cyclic case can not be restored:
$ psql
create database test;
\connect test
create function fn1(param1 int)
returns int as
$$ select $1 $$
language sql immutable;
create function fn2(param
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6299
Logged by: lindebg
Email address: lind...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.0, 9.1
Operating system: Linux, Windows
Description:pg_dump, pg_dumpall - Problem with the order of backup
functions
Details:
1
