The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2014
Logged by: Shaick
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.4
Operating system: HPUX
Description:createdb and other client binaries core dumps
Details:
We try to build postgreSQL 8.0.4 on H
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2013
Logged by: Joel Stevenson
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1b3
Operating system: RHEL 3
Description:Assertion Failure
Details:
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(!(tp.t_data->t_infomask & 0x08
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2016
Logged by: Pit Mueller
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1 BETA4
Operating system: WinXP
Description:query working with 8.0 fails with 8.1
Details:
Using this query to get the primary
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2015
Logged by: HOTTA Michihide
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1RC1
Operating system: Vine Linux 3.2
Description:typo in sql_help
Details:
sorry not to have checked cvs version.
---
Pit Mueller wrote:
> SELECT p.conname AS constraint_name FROM pg_constraint p WHERE
> p.contype = 'p' AND p.conrelid = pg_class.oid AND pg_class.relname =
> 'mytablename'
>
> leads to an error:
>
> ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class"
You need to mention pg_class in the FROM clau
HOTTA Michihide wrote:
> - N_("change a database role"),
> + N_("change a database user account"),
[etc]
The current code is correct. User accounts and groups are now mapped to
database roles.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(e
Joel Stevenson wrote:
> This occured during a nightly mainentance run which sets the transaction
> isolation level to SERIALIZABLE, moves records from 3 highly active tables
> to 3 storage tables by creating a temp table and selecting candidate record
> ids into it, then using that list via sub-se
"HOTTA Michihide" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sorry not to have checked cvs version.
It isn't in CVS, it's a generated file, so this patch is pretty
meaningless. Why do you think these changes are appropriate?
They look to me like attempts to revert intentional 8.1 documentation
changes having
"Shaick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We try to build postgreSQL 8.0.4 on HPUX 11.11 and in 64 bit client binaries
> core dumps.
> But in postgreSQL 8.0.3 we didn't face any issue.
[ diffs tarballs... ] Hmm, there is not very much at all changed in our
client-side code between 8.0.3 and 8.0.4.
Failed CLUSTER due to insufficient disk space seems to leave temporary files
behind at least on 7.4.7.
I used the following perl script to determine if there is files which do not
have corresponding entry in pg_class and timestamps of these files matched
with failed CLUSTER attempts.
Is it safe t
10 matches
Mail list logo