Hello,
I've noticed the following issue when autostarting PostgreSQL under
Ubuntu 12.04 64bit by bootup. I'm using PostgreSQL 9.1.
A manual service start works (service postgresql start).
2013-07-18 06:44:12 CEST FATAL: could not create shared memory segment:
Das Argument ist ung?ltig
2013-07-1
Michael Kunzmann wrote
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed the following issue when autostarting PostgreSQL under
> Ubuntu 12.04 64bit by bootup. I'm using PostgreSQL 9.1.
>
> A manual service start works (service postgresql start).
Not sure what you actually think is the bug...especially since PostgreSQL
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Michael Kunzmann wrote:
>
> I've noticed the following issue when autostarting PostgreSQL under
> Ubuntu 12.04 64bit by bootup. I'm using PostgreSQL 9.1.
>
> 2013-07-18 06:44:12 CEST FATAL: could not create shared memory segment:
>
How much RAM do you have, and
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 8315
Logged by: Jeff Frost
Email address: j...@pgexperts.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
Operating system: Scientific Linux 6
Description:
Simple test case:
pgx-test:~ $ createdb permtest
pgx-test:~ $ ps
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Michael Kunzmann wrote:
> Am 18.07.2013 17:33, schrieb bricklen:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Michael Kunzmann <
> m...@michaelkunzmann.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've noticed the following issue when autostarting PostgreSQL under
>> Ubuntu 12.04 64bit by bo
j...@pgexperts.com writes:
> permtest=# create extension dblink;
> CREATE EXTENSION
> permtest=# grant EXECUTE on FUNCTION dblink(text) to permtestuser;
> GRANT
I see no bug here. This is not different from any other
property-alteration you might do on an extension member object.
We allow that (i
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> j...@pgexperts.com writes:
>> permtest=# create extension dblink;
>> CREATE EXTENSION
>> permtest=# grant EXECUTE on FUNCTION dblink(text) to permtestuser;
>> GRANT
>
> I see no bug here. This is not different from any other
> property-alteration
Jeff Frost writes:
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see no bug here. This is not different from any other
>> property-alteration you might do on an extension member object.
>> We allow that (if you have privileges), but it's up to you to keep it
>> in sync with the extension
