[BUGS] Incomplete docs for restore_command for hot standby

2008-02-21 Thread Markus Bertheau
(I sent this to -docs already, but it didn't get through for some reason.) From the current 8.3 docs: Section 24.3.3.1 states about restore_command: The command will be asked for file names that are not present in the archive; it must return nonzero when so asked. Section 24.4.1 further

[BUGS] BUG #3975: tsearch2 index should not bomb out of 1Mb limit

2008-02-21 Thread Edwin Groothuis
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3975 Logged by: Edwin Groothuis Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.3 Operating system: FreeBSD 6.3 Description:tsearch2 index should not bomb out of 1Mb limit Details: I have been

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values

2008-02-21 Thread Gregory Stark
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21:03PM +0100, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote: On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Gregory Stark wrote: Unless you need cryptographic security I would not suggest using MD5. MD5 is intentionally designed to take a substantial

[BUGS] BUG #3976: Inteface direction issue

2008-02-21 Thread Anna
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3976 Logged by: Anna Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.2 Operating system: Windows Description:Inteface direction issue Details: I have installed PostGIS version 8.2, however after

[BUGS] Bug Attached Table Ms Access97 with Boolean

2008-02-21 Thread Ярослав Якубовский
Hello! Sorry for my English. Test on server PG 8.3.0.1 and ODBC driver 8.3.100. MS Acces 97 + service pack 2. I has trouble: with BOOLEAN when INSERT INTO VIEW - after INSERT state affected records is locked and don't edit by manually. It's edit only by SQL. It's appear if there is a Boolean

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3951: SELECT ... WHERE Param = ? does not work if Param is of type bytea

2008-02-21 Thread Vincent D'Haene
Gevik, The link didn't help because that is not the same problem as I have: My problem is that it seems that in postgresql you can't use a parameter bound to BYTEA data in the WHERE clause of the SQL statement. So in my case: SELECT x FROM T WHERE BinData = ? does not work (return code -1) if

[BUGS] Initdb error without much more details PostgreSQL 7.4.19

2008-02-21 Thread Laurent Barbier
Hello, I'm facing a trouble with the initdb execution of PostgreSQL 7.4.19 on a Redhat 4 : [uname -a] Linux host 2.6.9-5.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Jan 5 19:30:39 EST 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [cat /proc/version] Linux version 2.6.9-5.ELsmp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat

Re: [BUGS] Initdb error without much more details PostgreSQL 7.4.19

2008-02-21 Thread Tom Lane
Laurent Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm facing a trouble with the initdb execution of PostgreSQL 7.4.19 on a Redhat 4 : Looks like SELinux problems to me. Does it work after doing setenforce 0? Then i install PostgreSQL binary in the order : rpm -ivh

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3951: SELECT ... WHERE Param = ? does not work if Param is of type bytea

2008-02-21 Thread Tom Lane
Vincent D'Haene [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My problem is that it seems that in postgresql you can't use a parameter bound to BYTEA data in the WHERE clause of the SQL statement. The above claim is nonsense. So in my case: SELECT x FROM T WHERE BinData = ? does not work (return code -1) if

Re: [BUGS] Initdb error without much more details PostgreSQL 7.4.19

2008-02-21 Thread Laurent Barbier
Thanks a lot Tom, It works without the security enhanced functionality ! So, I didn't try the Red Hat's RPMs. Best regards, -- Laurent To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [BUGS] Initdb error without much more details

[BUGS] 8.3 problems with sspi authentication

2008-02-21 Thread Matthias Mohr
Hi everybody, this is my first post here, so I don't know if this has already be discussed here. I tried to use the new sspi authentication in PostgreSQL 8.3 to directly use a Windows user for PostgreSQL authentication. So for a test I changed the default 127.0.01/32 line in pg_hba.conf from

[BUGS] BUG #3978: plperl configure / build process behavior wrt Universal Binaries

2008-02-21 Thread Andy Satori
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3978 Logged by: Andy Satori Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.3 Operating system: Mac OS X Description:plperl configure / build process behavior wrt Universal Binaries Details: It appears

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3951: SELECT ... WHERE Param = ? does not work if Param is of type bytea

2008-02-21 Thread Vincent D'Haene
Hi Tom, Tx for you really clear answer, it helped a lot. I just found the problem and it could indeed be seen as a bug in my code, although that very same piece of code works without any problem on MSSQL 2K, MSSQL 2K5, MSSQL Express, Oracle 9i, Oracle 10, MySQL 5.0 and MySQL 5.1. The problem

Re: [BUGS] Incomplete docs for restore_command for hot standby

2008-02-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 08:01 +0600, Markus Bertheau wrote: (I sent this to -docs already, but it didn't get through for some reason.) From the current 8.3 docs: Section 24.3.3.1 states about restore_command: The command will be asked for file names that are not present in the archive; it

[BUGS] BUG #3979: SELECT DISTINCT slow even on indexed column

2008-02-21 Thread David Lee
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3979 Logged by: David Lee Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.2.6 Operating system: Ubuntu Feisty Server Description:SELECT DISTINCT slow even on indexed column Details: \d x: Column

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3979: SELECT DISTINCT slow even on indexed column

2008-02-21 Thread Jeff Davis
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 23:34 +, David Lee wrote: Finally, I ran: SELECT a, b FROM x GROUP BY a, b; But it was still the same. Next I created an index on (a) and ran the query: SELECT DISTINCT a FROM x but the same thing happened (first didn't use the index; after turning seq-scan

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3975: tsearch2 index should not bomb out of 1Mb limit

2008-02-21 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Edwin Groothuis wrote: Ouch. But... since very long words are already not indexed (is the length configurable anywhere because I don't mind setting it to 50 characters), I don't think that it should bomb out of this but print a similar warning like String only partly indexed. This is not a