Hi,
hubert depesz lubaczewski schrieb/wrote:
generally - order by datname is understood as "order by *variable
datname*". - which is null.
It's clear that it's a shadowing problem. But it's not a "FOR IN EXECUTE"
where a variable makes sense. I mean why is a "ORDER BY variable" valid in
"FOR
Hi Tom,
Tom Lane schrieb/wrote:
> > Red Hat stopped supporting the RHEL-4 App Stack product awhile ago;
> > since CentOS is evidently copying that, you should not hold your
> > breath waiting for an update :-(. However, as far as I can see
It seems that you are right, and I don't understand how
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5151
Logged by: Boris Folgmann
Email address: bo...@folgmann.de
PostgreSQL version: 8.1.15
Operating system: CentOS release 4.8 (Final)
Description:autovacuum process segfaults when max_fsm_pages are too
low
ion that satisfies the given argument types
You may need to add explicit typecasts
Look closely: postmaster now thinks that the first argument 1.0 is NUMERIC,
but I added only the /25 for the _second_ argument!
cu,
boris
--
Dipl.-Inf. Boris Folgmann mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Team
Hi!
I posted a bug report to this list. Did anybody receive it (subject: Silent
Deadlock)? I wanted to use bugzilla instead but couldn't find a link to it
on www.postgresql.org. Please move it to a prominent place, if you still
use it.
I'm also wondering what happened to news.postgresql.org, beca
Hi!
We run a web application based on a complex database using
postgresql-7.2.3-5.80 on Red Hat 8.0.
Generally using pgsql with JDBC is very nice, but from time to time we run
into problems that are caused by something like a silent deadlock, which
means that it isn't reported in the logfile and
Hi!
We run a web application based on a complex database using
postgresql-7.2.3-5.80 on Red Hat 8.0.
Generally using pgsql with JDBC is very nice, but from time to time we run
into problems that are caused by something like a silent deadlock, which
means that it isn't reported in the logfile and
