prasana venkatesh wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4409
Logged by: prasana venkatesh
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: pg3
Operating system: linux
Description:postmaster service is stopped
Details:
how to start pos
[ back to this issue ]
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/8/26 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> ERROR: set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set
>>
>> Hmm ... after a bit of poking at it, the reason it's failing is t
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I cannot reproduce, as this was on a production system and not seen again,
> but I created a simple index on a TEXT field, which was not chosen by the
> planner, even when seqscan was turned off. I analyzed the table, checked all
> the settings, e
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4410
Logged by: Greg Sabino Mullane
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.3
Operating system: Linux
Description:Indexes not seen right away
Details:
I cannot reproduce, as this was on a prod
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4409
Logged by: prasana venkatesh
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: pg3
Operating system: linux
Description:postmaster service is stopped
Details:
how to start postgrey post master service m
"Kevin Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Description:Bug in PQexecPrepared when using an integer primary key
> that does not start at 1
I'd say this is pilot error, most likely in the form of putting
parameter values into the wrong elements of the parameter arrays
passed to PQexecPrep
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In any case, now that we know that nLocks overflow is actually possible
>> within real-world transaction lengths, it'd behoove us to do something
>> about that in 8.4 or beyond.
> Is this a TODO?
Yes, although I'm still waiting for mo
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ reincluding the mailing list ]
>
> Michael Milligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Okay, it reproduces and surprise surprise nLocks does overflow...
>
> > ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16385/16467/0 is already held
> > lock(0x87408a028) id(16385,16467,0,0,0,1) grant
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4407
Logged by: Kevin Jenkins
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.3 build1400
Operating system: Windows
Description:Bug in PQexecPrepared when using an integer primary key
that does not star
