Hi Alvaro,
> On 30 Nov 2024, at 08:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Only if you have self-referencing FKs in partitioned tables. It
> would be an interesting data point to verify whether this reports
> anything else. Also, I'd be really curious if your databases include
> the case I'm suspicious
Hello,
On 2024-Nov-29, Paul Foerster wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 2024, at 18:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This reports case 2 as OK and case 1 as bogus, as should be. I tried
> > adding more partitions and this seems to hold correctly. I was afraid
> > though that this would fail if we create an FK
Hi Alvaro,
> On 29 Nov 2024, at 18:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> This all was to say that the query in the release notes is undoubtedly
> wrong. After thinking some more about it, I think the fix is to add 1
> to the number of constraints:
>
> SELECT conrelid::pg_catalog.regclass AS "constrain
On 2024-Nov-27, Tom Lane wrote:
> I doubt that there's anything actually wrong with the catalog state at
> this point (perhaps Alvaro would confirm that). That leads to the
> conclusion that what's wrong is the release notes' query for fingering
> broken constraints, and it needs some additional
Hi Tom, hi Alvaro,
> On 27 Nov 2024, at 19:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Okay, so I was able to reproduce this from scratch on HEAD:
great, thanks.
> I doubt that there's anything actually wrong with the catalog state at
> this point (perhaps Alvaro would confirm that). That leads to the
> conclusi
On 2024-Nov-27, Tom Lane wrote:
> I doubt that there's anything actually wrong with the catalog state at
> this point (perhaps Alvaro would confirm that). That leads to the
> conclusion that what's wrong is the release notes' query for fingering
> broken constraints, and it needs some additional
Paul Foerster writes:
> On 26 Nov 2024, at 22:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm suspicious that our repair recipe might not have accounted
>> for self-reference FKs fully, but that's just a gut feeling at
>> this point.
> Of course, it contains no secret data. Please find the full log below.
> Accordi
Hi Tom,
> On 26 Nov 2024, at 22:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I would have expected an empty result too. Can you confirm that
> p_ci_pipelines used to be a partition of something? Can you show us
> the full DDL (or psql \d+ output) for the partitioned table it
> used to be part of, and for that matt
Paul Foerster writes:
>> On 26 Nov 2024, at 17:56, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> When you run the query again do you get the same two statements?
> Yes. I can repeat the above 4 steps as much as I want. The result remains the
> same. I would have expected to have an empty result doing the final repea
Hi Adrian,
> On 26 Nov 2024, at 17:56, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
> Did you commit the statements?
Yes. I have autocommit on, the psql default.
> Are you using concurrent sessions to do this?
No. I do this in one session. 1. select, 2. drop, 3. add, 4. select.
> When you run the query again do y
On 11/26/24 01:59, Paul Foerster wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding the recent security update for PostgreSQL 15.
We have a gitlab database. It used to run on the PostgreSQL 15.8 software. I
updated from 15.8 to 15.10 and executed the corrective actions as outlined in:
https://www.postgre
Hi,
I have a question regarding the recent security update for PostgreSQL 15.
We have a gitlab database. It used to run on the PostgreSQL 15.8 software. I
updated from 15.8 to 15.10 and executed the corrective actions as outlined in:
https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/postgresql-171-165-159-
12 matches
Mail list logo
