On 06/05/10 09:48, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Ok - your bug is fixed in 8.3.10. This should make its way to your
Ubuntu apt repository soon (provided 8.10 is still getting updates
that is...).
Unfortunately it looks like you may not get this version - see:
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:I
On 05/05/10 22:13, Srinivas Naik wrote:
Hi Mark,
I took the output of the Postgresql. Please find the output:
Package: postgresql-8.3
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 8.3.9-0ubuntu8.10
Ok - your bug is fixed in 8.3.10. This should make its way to your
Ubuntu apt reposi
Hi Mark,
I took the output of the Postgresql. Please find the output:
Package: postgresql-8.3
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 8.3.9-0ubuntu8.10
Priority: optional
Section: misc
Maintainer: Martin Pitt
Uncompressed Size: 14.2M
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libcomerr2 (>= 1.01),
On 05/05/10 13:15, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Please log into postgres do:
SELECT version();
(and Robert suggested)
Should read *as* Robert suggested - sorry.
Also you could do this from the os:
$ aptitude show postgresql-8.3*
*which will display more detail for the version.
Cheers
Mark
*
*
On 05/05/10 06:24, Srinivas Naik wrote:
I am sorry for that, but I made two different installations and I was
messing up with various inputs.
Actually, the installed versions are below
*postgresql-8.3*
*Ubuntu 8.10 with 2.6.27 Kernel*
*and its an 32Bit O/S*
pgsql$ SELECT substring(B'00
Srinivas Naik wrote:
> Actually, the installed versions are below
> *postgresql-8.3*
> I just wanted to know how severe it is and how it can effect the
> database to result Memory Corruption/DoS.
Well, you're clearly *not* on 8.3.10, or you would not get the
error. Perhaps you should apply
I am sorry for that, but I made two different installations and I was
messing up with various inputs.
Actually, the installed versions are below
*postgresql-8.3*
*Ubuntu 8.10 with 2.6.27 Kernel*
*and its an 32Bit O/S*
pgsql$ SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2);
ERROR:invalid memo
Robert Haas wrote:
> But I don't have strong feelings about it.
Nor do I. Perhaps this question should be floated on -general?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hacker
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for
>> compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm
>> inclined toward the standard on this one.
> In a case like this, it seems unlikely that som
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for
> compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm
> inclined toward the standard on this one.
In a case like this, it seems unlikely that someone would be counting
on a ne
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the OP is probably running a version that doesn't include
> the Jan 7 commit, which was effectively undone by the Jan 25
> commit for CVS HEAD.
It sure looks like it.
> It looks like this was intentional based on spec behavior
> of overlay(), but should we consid
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> fwiw, results for all current postgres versions:
> [ only 9.0beta1 is different ]
It looks like the relevant commits are:
commit 822f2ac5a2ec7c6f10634f62a0b2dc6cc9929759
Author: Tom Lane
Date: Mon Jan 25 20:55:32 2010 +
Add get_b
On Tue, May 4, 2010 15:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Srinivas Naik wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Please find the below details:
>>
>> postgresql-8.3
>>
>> and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb
>>
>> and its an 32bit Ubuntu.
>
> Err, before you s
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Srinivas Naik wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Please find the below details:
>
> postgresql-8.3
>
> and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb
>
> and its an 32bit Ubuntu.
Err, before you said 8.4.3. Now you're saying 8.3. Those are totally
differ
Hi Mark,
Please find the below details:
postgresql-8.3
and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb
and its an 32bit Ubuntu.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 04/05/10 18:47, Srinivas Naik wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Can any one tell me whats the ef
On 04/05/10 18:47, Srinivas Naik wrote:
Hi,
Can any one tell me whats the effect of the below Query
SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2);
SELECT substring(B'0001' from 4 for -3);
its observed that there's an Error "invalid memory alloc request size
4244635647"
What w
Hi,
Can any one tell me whats the effect of the below Query
SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2);
SELECT substring(B'0001' from 4 for -3);
its observed that there's an Error "invalid memory alloc request size
4244635647"
What will actually happen to the Postgresql da
17 matches
Mail list logo
