On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> > Was this fixed?
>> >>
>> >> Not yet. ?I can probably fix it, if nobody
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > Was this fixed?
> >>
> >> Not yet. ?I can probably fix it, if nobody else wants to do it.
> >
> > Well, it has languished for five m
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Was this fixed?
>>
>> Not yet. I can probably fix it, if nobody else wants to do it.
>
> Well, it has languished for five months, so the "nobody else wants" p
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Was this fixed?
>
> Not yet. I can probably fix it, if nobody else wants to do it.
Well, it has languished for five months, so the "nobody else wants" part
is probably accurate. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian htt
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Was this fixed?
Not yet. I can probably fix it, if nobody else wants to do it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To
Was this fixed?
---
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of jue nov 18 15:31:16 -0300 2010:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 18 15:11:37 -0300 2010:
> >
> > > In the current maste
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of jue nov 18 15:31:16 -0300 2010:
>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 18 15:11:37 -0300 2010:
>>
>> > In the current master branch, it appears that "ALTER TABLE c INHERIT
>> > p" takes a
Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of jue nov 18 15:31:16 -0300 2010:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 18 15:11:37 -0300 2010:
>
> > In the current master branch, it appears that "ALTER TABLE c INHERIT
> > p" takes a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the child, which seems
> > suffic
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue nov 18 15:11:37 -0300 2010:
> In the current master branch, it appears that "ALTER TABLE c INHERIT
> p" takes a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the child, which seems
> sufficient, and an AccessShareLock on the parent, which seems like it
> might not be; thou
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Jon Nelson
>> wrote:
>>> I have a process which runs in parallel creating tables which, as the
>>> /final/ step in the import, gets SQL much like the fo
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Jon Nelson
> wrote:
>> I have a process which runs in parallel creating tables which, as the
>> /final/ step in the import, gets SQL much like the following applied:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE foo INHERIT bar;
>>
>> P
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> I have a process which runs in parallel creating tables which, as the
> /final/ step in the import, gets SQL much like the following applied:
>
> ALTER TABLE foo INHERIT bar;
>
> Periodically, I get this error: tuple concurrently updated
>
> O
I have a process which runs in parallel creating tables which, as the
/final/ step in the import, gets SQL much like the following applied:
ALTER TABLE foo INHERIT bar;
Periodically, I get this error: tuple concurrently updated
Of course, I googled for the error message and see a bunch of issue
13 matches
Mail list logo
