The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1959
Logged by: David Wheeler
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1b3
Operating system: Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger"
Description:readline error exiting psql
Details:
At least it doesn't segfault an
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1958
Logged by: Menno Smits
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3
Operating system: Linux (Fedora Core 3)
Description:Postmaster doesn't close open file handles on startup
Details:
The pos
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1962
Logged by: Charles Wegrzyn
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.4
Operating system: Linux : 2.6.13-r4
Description:ECPG and VARCHAR
Details:
I have code that under 8.0.3 works:
VARCH
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1961
Logged by: Tobias Lana
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 7.03.02
Operating system: Win 2000 Server
Description:Can not deinstall PostgreSQL
Details:
Tried to update Version 7.03.02 to 8
Hello
I am trying to build Postgresql 7.3.10 on Mac OS X 10.4 and am getting a couple errors related to bootstrap libraries. These are occuring during "make -C bootstrap all". Here is the output:
ma
On 10/12/2005 10:32:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We tend to follow the C conventions, so perhaps we
should
throw a warning, but I can't think of any cases where we throw a
warning
in plpgsql because we compile it once on first call.
I am thinking this falls in the "don't do that" category.
F
I would get a newer version of PostgreSQL, either 8.0.X or 8.1beta. I
am sure that wil work.
---
Peter Bazeley wrote:
> Hello
> I am trying to build Postgresql 7.3.10 on Mac OS X 10.4 and am getting a
> couple errors rela
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1960
Logged by: tadayoshi sato
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.4
Operating system: WindowsXp ,Linux (redhat9)
Description:Respons(Binary) is not correctly by PQexecParams
Details:
Th
On 10/12/2005 11:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
It isn't so much the alphabetical order, since there is only one
trigger, but the concept that we now group all the _before_ triggers
before the _after_ triggers.
But we've always done that. Has the example ever been c
I guess we could, though I have rarely seen programs do this. They
usually just to the std* descriptors.
---
Menno Smits wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 1958
> Logged by:
Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2005 10:32:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>We tend to follow the C conventions, so perhaps we
> > should
> > throw a warning, but I can't think of any cases where we throw a
> > warning
> > in plpgsql because we compile it once on first call.
> >
> > I am thinkin
"Menno Smits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The postmaster process doesn't close open file handles/sockets when it
> daemonises. This means it inherits all open file handles that the parent
> process had. This can lead to strange side effects because postgres will
> hold sockets and files that it r
Tobias Lana wrote:
Tried to update Version 7.03.02 to 8.0.1.1.
During the deinstallation of 7.03.02, following popup came up:
--
Error 1327, Invalid Drive W:
--
and the deinstallation aborted.
How can I deinstall the old driver ?
1. Is
On 10/13/05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I would get a newer version of PostgreSQL, either 8.0.X or 8.1beta. I
> am sure that wil work.
Yes, I discontinued support for the 7.3.x series on Mac OS X 10.4 in
the Fink packages for just this reason; it's not worth trying to
backport the changes from the
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> Fair enough. At the same time it sure would be nice if
>> plpgsql actually compiled (and parsed SQL) at
>> function definition time, even when the result is thrown away.
> 8.0 has this improvement:
> * Do minimal syntax checking of PL/pgSQL fu
"Peter Bazeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to build Postgresql 7.3.10 on Mac OS X 10.4 and am getting a =
> couple errors related to bootstrap libraries. These are occuring during =
> make -C bootstrap all. Here is the output:=20
> make -C bootstrap all=20
> gcc -traditional-cpp -g -
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:24:27PM +0100, Charles Wegrzyn wrote:
> I have code that under 8.0.3 works:
>
> VARCHAR t[MAX_TENANT_SIZE+1];
> VARCHAR o[MAX_OID_SIZE+1];
>
> In 8.0.4 I found this throws an error during the ecpg step:
>
> tenant.ec:375: ERROR: pointer to varchar are not implement
"David Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrm. No, I just went in and ran a query, then quit, and then it said:
> psql(14102) malloc: *** error for object 0x1807000: incorrect checksum for
> freed object - object was probably modified after being freed, break at
> szone_error to debug
> psql(1
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 10:38:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> >
> > On 10/12/2005 10:32:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >We tend to follow the C conventions, so perhaps we
> > > should
> > > throw a warning, but I can't think of any cases where we throw a
> > > warning
>
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Based on all that, I would certainly be in favor of throwing a warning
> if you over-define something, since 99% of the time it's a mistake. Is
> that possible with the current checking we do at compile time?
Without having looked at the code, I imagine
Thanks, I have added an additional sentence to that section outlining
the specific items that should match --- patch attached.
---
William ZHANG wrote:
> I remember that I have posted the answer to pgsql.bugs,
> but now it c
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error,
> but not if I do this:
>
> VARCHAR t[256];
> VARCHAR o[256];
>
> ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way.
This appears to be the guilty commit, which was made t
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:30:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Based on all that, I would certainly be in favor of throwing a warning
> > if you over-define something, since 99% of the time it's a mistake. Is
> > that possible with the current checking we
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:30:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Basically, DECLARE introduces a new name scope that wouldn't be there
>> if you didn't say DECLARE. Without some bizarre reinterpretation of the
>> meaning of a DECLARE at the start of a funct
This has been saved for the 8.2 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Devrim GUNDUZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/long_list.cgi?buglis
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:49:20AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> > ecpg in 8.0.4 seems not to like the macros. I get the same error,
> > but not if I do this:
> >
> > VARCHAR t[256];
> > VARCHAR o[256];
> >
> > ecpg in 8.1beta3 works either way.
>
> This appears t
26 matches
Mail list logo
