First, sorry for the slow reply.
Response inline.
On 09/17/2011 08:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer writes:
On 09/17/2011 05:10 AM, Carlo Curatolo wrote:
Just tried with PG 9.1...same problem...
Yep. There appears to be no interest in fixing this bug. All the
alternatives I proposed we
On 09/29/2011 05:18 AM, Holec wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6233
Logged by: Holec
Email address: ho...@email.cz
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.8
Operating system: Windows 7
Description:pg_dump hangs with Access Violation C005
Details:
Thanks everyone for the explanations. I posted a feature request for improved
enum manipulation in psql-general.
Dmitry Epstein | Developer
Allied Testing
www.alliedtesting.com
We Deliver Quality.
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscr
Hi,
It would be really great if you can provide me information Is PostGre
compatible to RHEL 6.1 ?
YAAMINI BIST
Configuration Engineer
Ericsson India Global Service Private Ltd
RM R&D India
10th Floor, Building No 9A, DLF Cyberciti, Sector 25A
122 002, Gurgaon ,Haryana, India, India
Phone +9
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Yaamini Bist wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It would be really great if you can provide me information Is PostGre
> compatible to RHEL 6.1 ?
This is a mailing list for addressing bugs that are found with PostgreSQL.
There isn't any such system as "PostGre", and whether that
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Henk Enting" writes:
>> I would expect the to_timestamp function to return an error when I feed it
>> out of range values, e.g. months > 13 and days > 31. Instead it seems to add
>> the surplus to the timestamp and then return it.
>
> What is y
I've built Postgres from master, and found that the following fairly
simple query breaks:
select count(*)
from
(
select
schemaname
frompg_stat_user_tables
order by1
) sub
group by schemaname
This produces the internal error message "no re
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I've built Postgres from master, and found that the following fairly
> simple query breaks:
>
> select count(*)
> from
> (
> select
> schemaname
> from pg_stat_user_tables
> order by 1
> ) sub
>
On 29 September 2011 21:59, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> hm -- works for me (9.1.0)
It works for me on REL9_1_STABLE too, unsurprisingly, as I would think
it highly unlikely that such a glaring bug would slip into a stable
release.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Deve
2011/9/29 Peter Geoghegan :
> On 29 September 2011 21:59, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> hm -- works for me (9.1.0)
>
> It works for me on REL9_1_STABLE too, unsurprisingly, as I would think
> it highly unlikely that such a glaring bug would slip into a stable
> release.
Have you did a make distclean b
On 30/09/11 10:08, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
2011/9/29 Peter Geoghegan:
On 29 September 2011 21:59, Merlin Moncure wrote:
hm -- works for me (9.1.0)
It works for me on REL9_1_STABLE too, unsurprisingly, as I would think
it highly unlikely that such a glaring bug would slip into a stable
releas
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I've built Postgres from master, and found that the following fairly
> simple query breaks:
> select count(*)
> from
> (
> select
> schemaname
> frompg_stat_user_tables
> order by1
> ) sub
> group by schemaname
> This p
On 29 September 2011 23:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
>> I've built Postgres from master, and found that the following fairly
>> simple query breaks:
>
>> select count(*)
>> from
>> (
>> select
>> schemaname
>> from pg_stat_user_tables
>> order b
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On 29 September 2011 23:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks like I broke it here:
>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=1cb108efb0e60d87e4adec38e7636b6e8efbeb57
> Hmm. Although it was obvious to me that this was an internal error, I
> have to won
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Yaamini Bist wrote:
> Hi,
> It would be really great if you can provide me information *Is PostGre
> compatible to RHEL 6.1 ?*
>
1. Yes.
2. This is not a bug.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 29/09/2011 6:22 AM, Vikas Mehta wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 6234
Logged by: Vikas Mehta
Email address: me...@roguewave.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.8
Operating system: Windows
Description:Memory leak from PQexec
Details:
Purify
16 matches
Mail list logo