I though that following message provided evidence for bug:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-05/msg00135.php
--
Anton Dedov
From: Tom Lane [t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:33 PM
To: Anton Dedov
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> On Jun 3, 2011 4:20 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to write this off as "so don't do that". There's nothing
>>> that pg_dump can do to make this work: it has to use the USING syntax
>>> for the join, and that doesn'
Summary: \copy interprets psql's :variables as literal strings
Tested On: 8.4.4, 9.0.4
Severity: Annoyance
Steps to Reproduce:
psql
\set filename 'test.csv'
\copy pg_class to :filename with csv
\q
ls
:filename
Note that psql variables work p
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6055
Logged by: Sav
Email address: hals...@ca.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.5
Operating system: Solaris 10
Description:connection refused
Details:
Hi
I have Solaris 10 machine. I get error Connection refused er
On 8/06/2011 2:47 PM, Sav wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6055
Logged by: Sav
Email address: hals...@ca.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.5
You're running an ancient version of PostgreSQL. Upgrade to the latest
in the 8.3 series at minimum; you ar
> On 11.03.2011 14:18, Ingmar Brouns wrote:
>> ... The reason seems to be
>> that the dtd_identifier of the element_types view has prepended 'a's whereas
>> the dtd_identifiers of the columns and parameter views do not:
>>
>> select column_name,dtd_identifier
>> from information_schema.columns c
>
On ons, 2011-06-08 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The omission of collection_type_identifier from the docs is clearly a
> doc bug. However, it looks to me like you've identified an error in the
> view definition, not only a doc bug. I think the values of the
> dtd_identifier and collection_typ
On ons, 2011-06-08 at 20:38 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-06-08 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The omission of collection_type_identifier from the docs is clearly a
> > doc bug. However, it looks to me like you've identified an error in the
> > view definition, not only a doc
