This just hit us today... Admittedly on an old cluster still running 9.2,
though I can't see any mention of it being addressed since.
Any chance of getting this on to to-do list?
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 at 07:45, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 31 October 2014 17:46, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> > I wonder whet
*.devices (device_id) );
ERROR: referenced relation "devices" is not a table
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Tim Kane wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Not sure if this has been reported already, it seems to be a variation on
> this thread:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/m
Hi all,
Not sure if this has been reported already, it seems to be a variation on
this thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130515151059.go4...@tamriel.snowman.net
One minor difference is, in my scenario - my source table field is defined
as BIGINT (not serial) - though it does have a
>
>
> From: Tom Lane
>
> Hm, can you restore it into 9.2 either?
>
> AFAICS, pg_dump has absolutely no idea that it should be worried about the
> value of xmloption, despite the fact that that setting affects what is
> considered valid XML data. What's worse, even if it were attempting to do
Just to be pedantic, commit message shows
"support for Tru64 ended in 201."
I think you mean 2012.
On 18/10/2013 13:41, "Robert Haas" wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 10/17/13 12:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> The attached patch, which I propose
Wow.. thanks guys, really appreciate the detailed analysis.
Tim
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:06:26PM +0100, Tim Kane wrote:
> > I haven't given this a lot of thought, but it struck me that when
> > rebuilding tables
Hi all,
I haven't given this a lot of thought, but it struck me that when
rebuilding tables (be it for a restore process, or some other operational
activity) - there is more often than not a need to build an index or two,
sometimes many indexes, against the same relation.
It strikes me that in or
