On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:35:59PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
> >> index 6b202e0..0677059 100644
> >> --- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
> >> +++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
> >> @@ -5150,7 +5150,7
Bruce Momjian writes:
>> diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
>> index 6b202e0..0677059 100644
>> --- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
>> @@ -5150,7 +5150,7 @@ set_config_option(const char *name, const char *value,
>> elevel =
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Selena Deckelmann
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Selena Deckelmann writes:
> The check_t
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Selena Deckelmann writes:
The check_temp_buffers() problem seems like a regression and blocks us
from upgrading to
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Selena Deckelmann writes:
>>> The check_temp_buffers() problem seems like a regression and blocks us
>>> from upgrading to 9.2. The use case are functions that set
>>> temp_buffers and o
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Selena Deckelmann writes:
>> The check_temp_buffers() problem seems like a regression and blocks us
>> from upgrading to 9.2. The use case are functions that set
>> temp_buffers and occasionally are called in a series from a parent
>> session. Th
> Uh ... how is that a regression? AFAIK it's been that way right along.
No, it hasn't. I currently have an application whose functions, each of
which sets temp_buffers, works fine under 9.0 and ERRORs out under 9.2.
It's blocking an upgrade.
This is new.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts I
Selena Deckelmann writes:
> The check_temp_buffers() problem seems like a regression and blocks us
> from upgrading to 9.2. The use case are functions that set
> temp_buffers and occasionally are called in a series from a parent
> session. The work around is... a lot of work.
Uh ... how is that
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Example:
>> create temporary table foo (a int);
>> insert into foo values (1);
>> alter role peter set temp_buffers = 120;
>> ERROR: 22023: invalid value for parameter "temp_buffers": 120
>> DETAIL: "temp_buffers" ca
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Example:
> create temporary table foo (a int);
> insert into foo values (1);
> alter role peter set temp_buffers = 120;
> ERROR: 22023: invalid value for parameter "temp_buffers": 120
> DETAIL: "temp_buffers" cannot be changed after any temporary tables
> have been acc
Example:
create temporary table foo (a int);
insert into foo values (1);
alter role peter set temp_buffers = 120;
ERROR: 22023: invalid value for parameter "temp_buffers": 120
DETAIL: "temp_buffers" cannot be changed after any temporary tables
have been accessed in the session.
Another example:
11 matches
Mail list logo
