Am 25.09.2012 18:08, schrieb Tom Lane:
s.pro...@pharmatechnik.de writes:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7567
Logged by: Stefan Pröls
Email address: s.pro...@pharmatechnik.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.3
Operating system: OpenSUSE 11.4 32-Bit
D
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:58:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> barrybr...@sierracollege.edu writes:
> > I sometime see my users delete all rows from a table using a command like
> > this:
>
> > DELETE FROM customer *;
>
> > The question is: what is the star? Is it a table alias or an
> > output_expr
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is there any value to having * vs just not using ONLY? I am not sure
> documenting this is helping us, and it would add more clutter. Isn't
> this like how we don't document the old COPY syntax.
I beg your pardon? The old COPY syntax certainly is documented; see
the bot
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:09:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > 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 tak
Hello
Everything is ended well.
Few tests has been made with the 9.2.0 but unfortunatly it fails, I supposed
due to my own fault.
Others (better?) with 9.2.1 are working fine :
I add on folders (mainly tablespace and backup) RW access to postgres and
networkService
Thanks for the informations.
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7569
Logged by: Melese Tesfaye
Email address: mtesf...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1
Operating system: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS + Debian 6 (both x86_64
Description:
I had a problem with missing rows in a
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7570
Logged by: Melese Tesfaye
Email address: mtesf...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.1
Operating system: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS + Debian 6 (both x86_64
Description:
I had a problem with missing rows in a
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:18 PM, wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7565
> Logged by: ashokkumar
> Email address: mcashokku...@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.0.3
> Operating system: Windows server 2008 64bit
> Description:
>
> I t
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7571
Logged by: Radovan Jablonovsky
Email address: radovan.jablonov...@replicon.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.5
Operating system: CentOs 5.8 Linux 2.6.18-308.el5 x86_64
Description:
During checking our co
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 7572
Logged by: Daniele Varrazzo
Email address: daniele.varra...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.4
Operating system: Linux
Description:
Hello,
when a slave is promoted, the pgwriter keeps holding a lo
mtesf...@gmail.com writes:
> I had a problem with missing rows in a resultset when using WHERE .. IN
> after upgrading to 9.2.0.
We'll need a self-contained test case to investigate that. The query
alone is of no help without table definitions and sample data sufficient
to reproduce the misbehavi
Melese Tesfaye writes:
> I do have a self-contained test case which duplicates the problem. However,
> since there are data to be attached and there wasn't a way to attach in the
> bug reporting form, I wasn't sure how to proceed.
Just send it to the pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list. (If y
Hello
this situation is possible, when optimizer use HashAgg where should not use it.
Please, try to disable HashAgg - set enable_hashagg to off;
please, send EXPLAIN result
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2012/9/26 :
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference: 7571
> L
Thanks Pavel,
Setting enable_hashagg to off didn't resolve the issue.
Please find the explain as well as query results after "set
enable_hashagg=off;"
mtesfaye@[local](test_db)=# EXPLAIN SELECT DISTINCT(A.*)
test_db-# FROM table1_t A LEFT JOIN table2_v B
test_db-# ON A.pnr_id=B.pnr_id
test_db-# WH
Hello
you should to run this query on real data - and if it works now, then
send EXPLAIN ANALYZE result, please
Pavel
2012/9/27 Melese Tesfaye :
> Thanks Pavel,
> Setting enable_hashagg to off didn't resolve the issue.
> Please find the explain as well as query results after "set
> enable_hashag
Melese Tesfaye writes:
> [ test case ]
Argh. The problem query has a plan like this:
-> Merge Join (cost=1084.06..1354.58 rows=4 width=13)
Merge Cond: (table2_t.pnr_id = a.pnr_id)
-> stuff ...
-> Index Scan using table1_t_pnr_id_idx5 on table1_t a
(co
16 matches
Mail list logo
