When doing a 'vacuum full verbose analyze' I got the following:
...
INFO: --Relation public.attribute--
INFO: Pages 11177: Changed 1868, reaped 5682, Empty 0, New 0; Tup 1140848: Vac 52622,
Keep/VTL 7800/3800, UnUsed 9805, MinLen 61, MaxLen 111; Re-using: Free/Avail. Space
5540384/5361524; En
I'm building off a CVS "latest" pull. But I couldn't seem to find bison
1.5+. I've looked in rpmfind.net, and the latest it can find is v1.35.
THEN I looked in GNU.org... I wonder why it's only hidden there, and not
included in rpmfind.net...
But all is well... Thanks!
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 10:2
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, saurabh garg wrote:
> HI
> thanx, it's true. now this step is clear, but again in the next step
> postmaster it's giving problem. when i give pg_ctl -D ..., its giving
> the listed below prblem. can u help me please.
>
> thanx in advance once again.
>
>
>
> santosh ku
Mats Lofkvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PANIC: moving chain: failed to add item with len = 93 to page 9395
Thanks for the report. I see a likely cause of this, which seems to
have been there for awhile:
to_vacpage->free -= MAXALIGN(tlen);
if (to_vacpa
it apears that date/time math using intervals of more than 2^32 seconds get
truncated to 2^32 seconds.
psql=# SELECT version();
version
-
PostgreSQL 7.3b3 on i386-unk
Darcy Buskermolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sure if you read the footers on Tom's email's it's pretty clearly stated
> 'do not kill -9 the postmaster'.
> So I'm not so sure that this is really a bug.
The operating environment is free to kill -9 the postmaster at any
time, and PostgreSQ
Philip Warner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
View not using index
Long Description
It seems that a UNION view fails to use underlying table indexes. This is a major pain
when using subclassed tables which are u
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Philip Warner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2
> The lower the number the more severe it is.
>
> Short Description
> View not using index
>
> Long Description
> It seems that a UNION view fails to use underlying table indexes.
At 06:03 PM 31/10/2002 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Reasonably current 7.3 beta sources show it doing an index scan for a
sequence like the below on t1.
Thanks. Do you know if there are any patches for 7.2.1? Or if it was fixed
in 7.2.N?
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 06:03 PM 31/10/2002 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >Reasonably current 7.3 beta sources show it doing an index scan for a
> >sequence like the below on t1.
>
> Thanks. Do you know if there are any patches for 7.2.1? Or if it was fixed
> in 7.2.N?
I don
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know offhand (don't have the 7.2.x machine accessable from
> home), but I would doubt it unless it was part of some other bug fix
> where behavior was incorrect.
AFAIR, it was you that convinced me it's safe to push down qual clauses
into UNION/I
11 matches
Mail list logo
