Re: [JDBC] [BUGS] Problem with Serializable transactions

2004-03-26 Thread Oliver Jowett
Tom Lane wrote: "Robert Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have noticed that using postgresql 7.4.2 at serializable level it is possible for two users to update the database at the same time. I ran your test program here and tracked down what the problem is. What's happening is that the JDBC d

[BUGS] [Fwd: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL ES3.0 problems?]

2004-03-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Original Message Subject: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL ES3.0 problems? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:06:23 -0800 From: Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, About a week ago we had a report of replicator not working correctly on

[BUGS] BUG #1116: "insert into" from "select" crashes backends

2004-03-26 Thread PostgreSQL Bugs List
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1116 Logged by: Vic Ricker Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 7.4 Operating system: Linux (Redhat 9) Description:"insert into" from "select" crashes backends Details: I apologize in adva

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1116: "insert into" from "select" crashes backends

2004-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
"PostgreSQL Bugs List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > PostgreSQL version: 7.4 > Description:"insert into" from "select" crashes backends This is fixed in 7.4.2 --- or at least we fixed a couple of very similar symptoms. Please update, and resubmit if you still see it.

Re: [BUGS] Fwd: Infinite recursion in function causes DoS

2004-03-26 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:25:33 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Either way, this situation leads to a DoS of the database system or the > entire machine. Since any user with enough privileges to access the > database can create and execute functions, this raises a slight secu

Re: [BUGS] Fwd: Default pg_autovacuum config glitches

2004-03-26 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 16:08:49 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi PostgreSQL hackers! > > A while ago we received the bug report below against pg_autovacuum. > Since it runs as a daemon, it should detach from its controlling > terminal by executing sth like > > int nul

[BUGS] BUG #1117: Time calculation from epoch is 12 hours out

2004-03-26 Thread PostgreSQL Bugs List
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1117 Logged by: Neil Cooper Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 7.3.4 Operating system: Red Hat ES 3.0 Description:Time calculation from epoch is 12 hours out Details: I'm using the Postg

Re: [BUGS] Fwd: Default pg_autovacuum config glitches

2004-03-26 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 16:08:49 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A while ago we received the bug report below against pg_autovacuum. Since it runs as a daemon, it should detach from its controlling terminal by executing sth like int nullfd = open("/d

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1117: Time calculation from epoch is 12 hours out

2004-03-26 Thread Tom Lane
"PostgreSQL Bugs List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The output of the following query: > select '1970-1-1 00:00:00'::timestamp + '1080302400 seconds'::reltime; > gives: 2004-03-26 00:00:00. This is apparently exactly 12 hours wrong. I > believe the query should have given me: 2004-03-26 12:00:0

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1117: Time calculation from epoch is 12 hours out

2004-03-26 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, PostgreSQL Bugs List wrote: > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bug reference: 1117 > Logged by: Neil Cooper > > Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PostgreSQL version: 7.3.4 > > Operating system: Red Hat ES 3.0 > > Description:Time c

Re: [BUGS] Bug#225680: Fwd: Default pg_autovacuum config glitches

2004-03-26 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 00:56:47 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, daemons that run for a long time should not log to > stdout/stderr, but to syslog. Otherwise they clutter up the screen > randomly or the messages are not seen at all (when you are only > working under X for