Re: [BUGS] BUG #5800: "corrupted" error messages (encoding problem ?)

2011-09-29 Thread Craig Ringer
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

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6233: pg_dump hangs with Access Violation C0000005

2011-09-29 Thread Craig Ringer
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:

Re: [BUGS] Problems with ENUM type manipulation in 9.1

2011-09-29 Thread depstein
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

[BUGS] PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1

2011-09-29 Thread Yaamini Bist
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

Re: [BUGS] PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1

2011-09-29 Thread Christopher Browne
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

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6231: weird to_timestamp behaviour with out of range values

2011-09-29 Thread Robert Haas
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

[BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Merlin Moncure
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 >

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread 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. -- Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Deve

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Dickson S. Guedes
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

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Mark Kirkwood
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

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
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

Re: [BUGS] "no relation entry for relid 1"

2011-09-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [BUGS] PostGre compatible to RHEL 6.1

2011-09-29 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [BUGS] BUG #6234: Memory leak from PQexec

2011-09-29 Thread Craig Ringer
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