Ole Tange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Ole Tange" writes:
(modulo NULLs which seem to always cause problems in NOT INs).
Because it can be rewritten, NOT IN should never be much slower than the
rewritten solution, as PostgreSQL should simply rewrite
Hi Jakub,
On 21/05/10 16:19, Jakub Ouhrabka wrote:
can anyone tell me how this could happen, please?
database=# begin; update table set col = 100;
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
Hi Joshua,
On 23/05/10 00:45, Joshua Tolley wrote:
2010/5/22 Tom Molesworth:
Seems to be trivially easy to reproduce by connecting via psql, then killing
that connection before issuing the 'begin; update' sequence (against
postgres directly, no pgbouncer needed). If anything, it&
Hi Jakub,
On 24/05/10 08:52, Jakub Ouhrabka wrote:
> The auto-reconnect behavior is long-established and desirable. What's
> not desirable is continuing with any statements remaining on the same
> line, I think. We need to flush the input buffer on reconnect.
So if I understand it correctly,
Hi Bruce,
On 30/11/10 03:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Pavel Arnost wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5768
Logged by: Pavel Arnost
Email address: pavel.arn...@loutka.cz
PostgreSQL version: 9.01
Operating system: N/A
Description:Inefficiency
