Re: [BUGS] BUG #4721: All sub-tables incorrectly included in search plan for partitioned table

2009-05-11 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > "Eric Thompson" writes: >> test=# -- remove any irrelevant constraint from the master table, and now >> the date partitioning works > Hmm. Tracing through this, it seems your child tables have exactly 101 > separate constraint clauses; removing one from the parent table gets it > dow

Re: [BUGS] Is this the expected behaviour for DDL-query execution?

2009-05-11 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Johansson writes: > When performing an DROP TABLE query on a partition when one or more > other threads are at the same time performing updates on the very same > partitioned table (UPDATES which does not reference the partition key > column!, i.e. all available partitions has to be chec

[BUGS] Is this the expected behaviour for DDL-query execution?

2009-05-11 Thread Thomas Johansson
Hi, I am using PG 8.2.11 with psycopg2 2.0.6 (Python) in a multithreaded application. Each thread keeps its own DB-connection. The tables in the applications DB are partitioned with help of triggers for redirection of INSERTS (only triggers for INSERTS, not for DELETE or UPDATES, we rely on

Re: [BUGS] unconfirmed bug #4784

2009-05-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
Jörg Kiegeland wrote: > Hi, > Approx. 2 weeks ago, I posted a bug which got the ID 4784. However I got > no response to it, and it not occurs in the mbox of April or May. > This bug is quite important to us, since it was reported by our > customer. So I would like to know if this bug is still being

[BUGS] unconfirmed bug #4784

2009-05-11 Thread Jörg Kiegeland
Hi, Approx. 2 weeks ago, I posted a bug which got the ID 4784. However I got no response to it, and it not occurs in the mbox of April or May. This bug is quite important to us, since it was reported by our customer. So I would like to know if this bug is still being checked / on a waiting list