On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Can SHOW return a NULL value, rather than the empty string?
>
> I think that would take some work in guc.c, and likely a redefinition
> of the API for show-hook functions. I'm not excited about doing it,
> particularly not
Robert Haas writes:
> Can SHOW return a NULL value, rather than the empty string?
I think that would take some work in guc.c, and likely a redefinition
of the API for show-hook functions. I'm not excited about doing it,
particularly not in a bug fix that needs to be back-patched.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:36:18 -0400 2010:
>>> Well, the more general point is what should "SHOW session_authorization"
>>> show in an autovacuum process? The fact that Andrew wasn't
>>> intenti
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:36:18 -0400 2010:
>> Well, the more general point is what should "SHOW session_authorization"
>> show in an autovacuum process? The fact that Andrew wasn't
>> intentionally doing that doesn't mean that someone else might
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:36:18 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:03:06 -0400 2010:
> >> Wouldn't an empty string be acceptable? SQL doesn't allow zero-length
> >> identifiers, so this couldn't be confused with any r
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:03:06 -0400 2010:
>> Wouldn't an empty string be acceptable? SQL doesn't allow zero-length
>> identifiers, so this couldn't be confused with any really-valid value.
> I dunno really -- what is this value used for, anyway
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 13:03:06 -0400 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > But what would this default value be?
>
> Wouldn't an empty string be acceptable? SQL doesn't allow zero-length
> identifiers, so this couldn't be confused with any really-valid value.
I dunno real
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 12:39:24 -0400 2010:
>> As far as a fix for the crash goes, I'm not sure if it'd be better to
>> try to make show_session_authorization() return some sort of default
>> value in this scenario, or to try to ensure that the var
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié sep 22 12:39:24 -0400 2010:
> OK ... so the problem is that the function uses the pg_settings view,
> which results in calling show_all_settings(), and in particular it
> runs show_session_authorization(), which then dumps core because
> session_authorizatio
Andrew Geery writes:
> The schema below crashes pretty reliably for me.
OK ... so the problem is that the function uses the pg_settings view,
which results in calling show_all_settings(), and in particular it
runs show_session_authorization(), which then dumps core because
session_authorization_s
The schema below crashes pretty reliably for me. There are three
objects: an immutable function, a table called a and a gin index on
table a using the immutable function. To reproduce the crash, do
enough inserts into table a to kick off the auto-vacuum process; the
insert statement below with th
Andrew Geery writes:
> I think I've tracked down the problem, although I haven't been able to
> get a stack trace yet. I'm afraid that it's my own stupidity, but I
> still don't understand why this crashes the entire engine.
Me either. Can you narrow it down to a self-contained test case so
oth
I think I've tracked down the problem, although I haven't been able to
get a stack trace yet. I'm afraid that it's my own stupidity, but I
still don't understand why this crashes the entire engine.
On the collection table, I have a FTS index. I probably should have
defined the index this way:
c
Excerpts from Andrew Geery's message of mar sep 21 16:37:20 -0400 2010:
> Running the server in debug mode, I see the following before the
> server crashes -- it looks like something goes wrong with
> autovac_balance_cost when trying to analyze the collection table (that
> was the table the inserts
Running the server in debug mode, I see the following before the
server crashes -- it looks like something goes wrong with
autovac_balance_cost when trying to analyze the collection table (that
was the table the inserts were being done into).
Thanks
Andrew
2010-09-21 16:27:40 EDTDEBUG: collectio
I'm just doing insert statements via JDBC. Here's the table definition:
CREATE TABLE collection
(
id serial NOT NULL,
app_uid character(36) NOT NULL DEFAULT uuid_generate_v4(),
lock_rev integer NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
collection_type_code character(3) NOT NULL,
asset_type_code character(3)
On 21/09/10 21:57, Andrew Geery wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5669
Logged by: Andrew Geery
Email address: andrew.ge...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.0
Operating system: Windows Vista
Description:server process was terminated by ex
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5669
Logged by: Andrew Geery
Email address: andrew.ge...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.0
Operating system: Windows Vista
Description:server process was terminated by exception 0xC005
Details:
My PG 9.0 D
18 matches
Mail list logo
