On Mar 11, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bhuvan A wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mar 10, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bhuvan A wrote:
> > >
> > > > here i have a problem in comparing null values in plpgsql. this exist
> > > > in 7.1.x and 7.2 as well.
> > > >
>
Hello!
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
[skip]
> The easiest way to get back to a working database is to UPDATE the
> pg_language row with the correct OID of the call handler function.
> I'd be interested to know how you got into this state, though.
pg_dumpall|psql -p5454 ?8) typical mistake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The root cause of this problem is that the script interpreter for the
> configure script is /bin/sh. The configure script is NOT a /bin/sh
> compatible script. It requires GNU BASH to execute properly.
Hardly, considering that I don't have GNU BASH installed at all h
Hello!
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bhuvan A wrote:
[skip]
> > If you compare a NULL with anything you don't get a true value whether
> > you're comparing with =, !=, <, >, etc... That's how it's defined to
> > behave.
>
> where did you get this definition of behaviour!? is it applicable only to
> post
Bhuvan A writes:
> > If you compare a NULL with anything you don't get a true value whether
> > you're comparing with =, !=, <, >, etc... That's how it's defined to
> > behave.
>
> where did you get this definition of behaviour!? is it applicable only to
> postgres or ..? its quite strange yaar
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bhuvan A wrote:
> > If you compare a NULL with anything you don't get a true value whether
> > you're comparing with =, !=, <, >, etc... That's how it's defined to
> > behave.
>
> where did you get this definition of behaviour!? is it applicable only to
> postgres or ..? i
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Bhuvan A wrote:
> If you compare a NULL with anything you don't
> get a true value whether you're comparing with
> =, !=, <, >, etc... That's how it's defined to
> behave.
>
> where did you get this definition of behaviour!?
> is it applicable only to
> postgres or ..? it
Ben Grimm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 1
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
Sequence values fall back to previously checkpointed value after crash
Long Description
It's hard to decide if it's devestating or not, since the bug is only apparent wh
Yikes! I have reproduced this bug. My server logs are:
LOG: database system was shut down at 2002-03-08 17:30:03 CET
LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/46D018
LOG: redo record is at 0/46D018; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
LOG: next transaction id: 146; next oid: 16561
LOG: database sys
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yikes! I have reproduced this bug.
I believe I see the problem: MyLastRecPtr is being used in incompatible
ways.
The issue is that sequence operations are logged as "outside transaction
control", which I believe is intended to mark XLOG records that s
Hi Tom,
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 16:17, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Can anyone see a way that this mechanism explains the prior reports?
Not sure about that, but I really feel the fix for this should go into 7.2.1,
just in case the list of patches for that is still being assembled.
Regards and best w
11 matches
Mail list logo
