On Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:14 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Amit kapila wrote:
> On Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:27 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Amit kapila
wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:57 PM Fujii Masao
>> On Thu,
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7546
Logged by: Stuart Bishop
Email address: stu...@stuartbishop.net
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.5
Operating system: Ubuntu 12.10
Description:
I have a primary and a hot standby using streaming replication.
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7545
Logged by: Len Tanaka
Email address: tanaka...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
Operating system: Mac OS X 10.6.8
Description:
Multiple log files with same error repeated:
poll() failed: Invalid
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7548
Logged by: Reinhard Max
Email address: m...@suse.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.5
Operating system: openSUSE
Description:
It looks like the attempt to remove pg_upgrade's dependency on pg_config
(http:/
Thanks Craig,
We were able to make the necessary adjustments to the way Hibernate manages
the data types differently in version 4.1.6, so we got pass this error. Now
we have to tackle the a problem with the hibernate 4.1.6 batcher process no
longer allowing us to ingest data into the database. We
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7549
Logged by: Petteri Räty
Email address: pet...@petteriraty.eu
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
Operating system: Linux or OS X
Description:
On a streaming hot standby slave starting postgres:
LOG: databa
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7550
Logged by: Tom Forbes
Email address: t...@tomforb.es
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
Operating system: Windows 8
Description:
Hello,
I wasn't sure how to title this report so apologies if it is incorrect
t...@tomforb.es writes:
> I have two queries:
> http://pgsql.privatepaste.com/7d1473defa
> http://pgsql.privatepaste.com/85e1d43b7a
> The first query returns NULL and the second one returns an int[] with 623
> elements in it. The only difference between the two queries is the last
> string - 'J. P
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:51 AM, wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7549
> Logged by: Petteri Räty
> Email address: pet...@petteriraty.eu
> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
> Operating system: Linux or OS X
> Description:
>
> On a streaming
On 17.9.2012 16.57, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:51 AM, wrote:
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference: 7549
>> Logged by: Petteri Räty
>> Email address: pet...@petteriraty.eu
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
>> Operating system:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7551
Logged by: Diego de Lima
Email address: diego_de_l...@hotmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
Operating system: Centos 6
Description:
When executing a vacuum full analyse of a column typed as a domain
Ok, I will try. I apologize, I made a mistake in the original post:
'J. P. Bickella' returns the correct array and 'J. P. Bickell' returns
NULL. That's what you get for posting in a hurry!
This is the first time I have run this query, so I don't know if it
affects previous versions.
~Tom
On Mon,
What I want to do is,
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION clean()
RETURNS void AS $$
DECLARE
r record;
BEGIN
FOR r in select distinct(id) from temp
loop
If r.id is null or r.id ='' Then
Insert into table_1 select
Hello,
I have recently upgraded to PostgreSQL 9.2.0 and one of my queries is now
giving incorrectly sorted results due, I believe, to the new index-only scan in
9.2.0. The below table is a table of currency FX rates by date.
template1=# \d fx0;
Table "public.fx0"
Column |
and...@tchijov.com writes:
> In a view (can provide source upon request) where condition on one of
> columns gets ignored by select. No errors at all. Select runs as if the
> condition is not present. Where conditions on other columns work as
> expected.
You really think this is sufficient detail
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7552
Logged by: Andrei Tchijov
Email address: and...@tchijov.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.0
Operating system: Ubuntu 11.10
Description:
In a view (can provide source upon request) where condition on one o
On 09/18/2012 01:23 AM, Freddie Burgess wrote:
Thanks Craig,
We were able to make the necessary adjustments to the way Hibernate manages
the data types differently in version 4.1.6, so we got pass this error. Now
we have to tackle the a problem with the hibernate 4.1.6 batcher process no
longer
diego_de_l...@hotmail.com writes:
> ERROR: array_typanalyze was invoked for non-array type 29692
> I guess postgres ins't recognizing the domain as an array correctly,
> somewhere in the process.
Oh dear, where's my brown paper bag? :-(
Fixed, thanks for the report!
rega
"McGehee, Robert" writes:
> I have recently upgraded to PostgreSQL 9.2.0 and one of my queries is now
> giving incorrectly sorted results due, I believe, to the new index-only scan
> in 9.2.0. The below table is a table of currency FX rates by date.
Hmm, no it's not about index-only scans (your
On 09/18/2012 07:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
If you change the max_connections on the master, you need to take a
fresh backup from the master and start the standby from it.
WTF, really?
What else breaks the replication and forces a re-clone?
--
Craig Ringer
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list
On 18.09.2012 09:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 09/18/2012 07:57 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
If you change the max_connections on the master, you need to take a
fresh backup from the master and start the standby from it.
WTF, really?
No. It's enough to bump up max_connections on the standby, and rest
21 matches
Mail list logo
