Alexander M. Pravking wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:48:00PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tim, I guess your problem is dead index pages that can't be reclaimed,
> > and it isn't fixed in 7.3. Only REINDEX fixes it, and we have a
> > /contrib/reindexdb script in 7.3.
>
> As I see, contrib/
Tom,
> (IMHO, the SQL spec is really brain-dead to define timestamp without
> time zone as the default form of timestamp; the variant with time zone
> is much more useful for most applications. It's far too easy to shoot
> yourself in the foot when working with zoneless timestamps --- usually
>
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ken Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ date_part('epoch') is wrong for a timestamp value ]
>
> The epoch value is really only correct for a TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
> value. If you apply date_part('epoch') to a timestamp without t
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:48:00PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tim, I guess your problem is dead index pages that can't be reclaimed,
> and it isn't fixed in 7.3. Only REINDEX fixes it, and we have a
> /contrib/reindexdb script in 7.3.
As I see, contrib/reindexdb requires perl for commandline
p
Ken Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ date_part('epoch') is wrong for a timestamp value ]
The epoch value is really only correct for a TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
value. If you apply date_part('epoch') to a timestamp without time zone,
as you appear to be doing here, what you will get is the e
