[BUGS] Problem in Postgresql installation

2002-04-08 Thread Pierre-Alexis Paquin
Hi   I have installed a 7.1.3 postgresql version on my linux server. (RedHat 7.2)   When I type "createuser " it asks me :  Shall the new user allowed to create databases (y/n)?                                                                         Shall the new user allowed

Re: [BUGS] Problem in Postgresql installation

2002-04-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Pierre-Alexis Paquin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Someone wrote me :=20 > 1. Did you initialized your database with initdb ? > 2. Have you started Postgres with postmaster -i or pg_ctl start ? > 3. Have you modified parameters in $PGDATA/postgresql.conf file ? > Follow your answers, you have

[BUGS] Full path to procedural language in the dump is a bug

2002-04-08 Thread Victor Wagner
It is very natural to careful system administrator to upgrade production database following way: 1. Install new version of PostgreSQL in alternate location 2. Start it on alternate port 3. restore all the data from latest backup 4. Test the installation 5. And only than put it in production use.

Re: [BUGS] What's the difference?

2002-04-08 Thread Victor Wagner
>Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> As far as I understand, following three queries are exactly equivalent: >Same results, but the second two constrain the planner's choice of join >order. See >http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.2/postgres/explicit-joins.html >Whether t

Re: [BUGS] Full path to procedural language in the dump is a bug

2002-04-08 Thread Tom Lane
Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I propose solution to this problem - define a predefined > substitution variable pg_lib in the psql which points to the > library directory of current installation, and make pg_dump output > procedural language implementation following way: You're too

Re: [BUGS] What's the difference?

2002-04-08 Thread Tom Lane
Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Same results, but the second two constrain the planner's choice of join >> order. See >> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.2/postgres/explicit-joins.html >> Whether this is a feature or a bug depends on context... >> regards, tom lane

[BUGS] Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly...

2002-04-08 Thread pgsql-bugs
Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly... Long Description It looks like a bad parser or defaults for time values. The example code below explai

Re: [BUGS] Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly...

2002-04-08 Thread Sean Chittenden
> > date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly... > > > It looks like a bad parser or defaults for time values. The > > example code below explains the problem best. I'm not sure why, > > or where... but it took me about a day to track down (PostgreSQL > > is never wrong!). If I in

Re: [BUGS] Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed

2002-04-08 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly... > It looks like a bad parser or defaults for time values. The example code below >explains the problem best. I'm not sure why, or where... but it took me about a day >to track down (PostgreSQL is never wrong!). If I include a timezo

Re: [BUGS] Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed

2002-04-08 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> $ uname -a > FreeBSD ninja1.internal 4.5-STABLE FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE #0: Fri Apr 5 18:08:12 PST >2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/opt/obj/opt/src/sys/NINJA i386 > $ psql > # SELECT timestamp '2002-4-7 2:0:0.0'; > timestamptz > > 2036-06-02 22:57:08-07 > # SELECT versi