Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles

2014-09-18 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 09/18/2014 09:44 AM, lud...@kni-online.de wrote: Hi Adrian, this database runs as develop-version on my PC and was created by hand, no dumps or pg_upgrade. The same database runs as production-version on another server (PostgreSQL 9.3.1, compiled by Visual C++ build 1600, 32-bit), so far witho

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles

2014-09-18 Thread lud...@kni-online.de
contents. But I'm curious about what has caused the problems and how to avoid them...   Ludwig   Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 15:53 Uhr Von: "Adrian Klaver" An: "lud...@kni-online.de" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] strange p

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles

2014-09-18 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 09/18/2014 04:12 AM, lud...@kni-online.de wrote: Hi Adrian, data got into the database with normal update/insert-queries from logged-in database-users using "normal" PG-Users/roles, the "ghost-roles" (with these unusual numerical role-names) were never created by me, I don't know where they co

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles

2014-09-18 Thread lud...@kni-online.de
ems?   Ludwig Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. September 2014 um 17:33 Uhr Von: "Adrian Klaver" An: "lud...@kni-online.de" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles On 09/17/2014 08:08 AM, lud...@kni-online.de wrote: > Hi list

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with not existing roles

2014-09-17 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 09/17/2014 08:08 AM, lud...@kni-online.de wrote: Hi list, I have a strange problem in postgres (PostgreSQL 9.3.1, compiled by Visual C++ build 1600, 64-bit), there are granted privileges on schemas, tables, columns for roles that don't exist. So how did the data get into the database? Exa

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with string and select

2012-08-30 Thread Condor
On , Alban Hertroys wrote: On 30 August 2012 10:12, Condor wrote: Hello, can I ask is exist some kind of automatic escape string in postgresql ? I use pgsql 9.1.5 and I have very interest problem, I have field with text string that I cant find normally. Here is examples (I replace in examp

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with string and select

2012-08-30 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 30 August 2012 10:12, Condor wrote: > Hello, > can I ask is exist some kind of automatic escape string in postgresql ? > I use pgsql 9.1.5 and I have very interest problem, I have field with text > string that I cant find normally. > Here is examples (I replace in example Cyrillic encoding bec

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with turning WAL archiving on

2011-12-01 Thread Albe Laurenz
BK wrote: [server complains that wal_level is not set correctly] >> Did you change the correct postgresql.conf? >> Are there more than one lines for wal_level in the file >> (try "grep wal_level postgresql.conf")? > > I tried greping, there is just one nstance of it and is set on archive. > > Any

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with turning WAL archiving on

2011-11-30 Thread Rodrigo Gonzalez
On 11/30/2011 01:43 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 30 Listopad 2011, 17:23, BK wrote: Hi Albe, On Nov 30, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote: Verify the current setting with SELECT setting, source, boot_val, reset_val, sourcefile, sourceline FROM pg_settings WHERE name = 'wal_level'; If

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with turning WAL archiving on

2011-11-30 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 30 Listopad 2011, 17:23, BK wrote: > Hi Albe, > > On Nov 30, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote: >> Verify the current setting with >> >> SELECT setting, source, boot_val, reset_val, >> sourcefile, sourceline >> FROM pg_settings WHERE name = 'wal_level'; >> >> If the setting is not right

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with turning WAL archiving on

2011-11-30 Thread BK
Hi Albe, On Nov 30, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote: > Verify the current setting with > > SELECT setting, source, boot_val, reset_val, > sourcefile, sourceline > FROM pg_settings WHERE name = 'wal_level'; > > If the setting is not right (which is likely the case), try to find out > t

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with turning WAL archiving on

2011-11-30 Thread Albe Laurenz
BK wrote: > I've spent a couple of hours trying some WAL archiving functionality on PostgrSQL 9.1 (running on Mac > OS X). I turned on all the needed options as specified in the documentation: > > wal_level = archive > archive_mode = on > archive_command='test ! -f /Volumes/baza/%f && cp %p /Volum

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-12 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 09:34:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > > Any chance of getting the fix in patch format so we could test it on > > this system? > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=patch;h=23998fe99c1220ba3a9eefee194e37ec1f14ae07 hi jus

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-06 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > checked lengths of the text/varchar columns in database. > there are 16 such columns in the table. > full report of lengths is in > http://www.depesz.com/various/lengths.report.gz > it was obtained using: > select length( "first_text_column" ) as length_1, cou

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-06 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > that. And that they are the only rows that, in addition to the above > conditions, contain data fields wide enough to require out-of-line > toasting. checked lengths of the text/varchar columns in database. there are 16 such columns in

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-06 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > Any chance of getting the fix in patch format so we could test it on > this system? http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=patch;h=23998fe99c1220ba3a9eefee194e37ec1f14ae07 regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mail

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hah ... I have a theory. > > I will bet that you recently added some column(s) to the source table > using ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN and no default value, so that the added > columns were nulls and no table rewrite happened. And that these

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > A different line of thought is that there's something about these > specific source rows, and only these rows, that makes them vulnerable to > corruption during INSERT/SELECT. Do they by any chance contain any > values that are unusual elsewhere in your table? One thing I'm > wondering

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Friday, November 04, 2011 6:04:02 pm Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > A different line of thought is that there's something about these > > specific source rows, and only these rows, that makes them vulnerable to > > corruption during INSERT/SELECT. Do they by any chance contain any > > values th

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:06:35PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > Another question. > Between 07/20/11 and this recent attempt did you do a CREATE TABLE AS on this > table and not have corrupted rows? don't remember. Best regards, depesz -- The best thing about modern society is how easy it is

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:49:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > You said that pg_dump does not show the corruption. That could be > because the data is coming out through the COPY code path instead of > the SELECT code path. Could you try a pg_dump with --inserts (which > will fetch the data with SEL

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-05 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Friday, November 04, 2011 3:43:48 pm hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:49:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > You said that pg_dump does not show the corruption. That could be > > because the data is coming out through the COPY code path instead of > > the SELECT code pa

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:49:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> You said that pg_dump does not show the corruption. That could be >> because the data is coming out through the COPY code path instead of >> the SELECT code path. Could you try a pg_dump with --inser

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:49:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > You said that pg_dump does not show the corruption. That could be > because the data is coming out through the COPY code path instead of > the SELECT code path. Could you try a pg_dump with --inserts (which > will fetch the data with SEL

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:18:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, did you try the separate INSERT/SELECT yet? Does that show > corruption? pg_dump --inserts is still working. i did create table (like), insert into ... select and it also shows the problem, as I showed (with other data) in email: 2

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Good detective work. So now we at least have a believable theory about > *what* is happening (something is stomping the first 8 data bytes of > these particular rows), if not *why*. Scratch that: something is stomping the first *six* bytes of data. On a hunch I converted the original a

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:49:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > You said that pg_dump does not show the corruption. That could be > because the data is coming out through the COPY code path instead of > the SELECT code path. Could you try a pg_dump with --inserts (which > will fetch the data with SEL

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > OK. So based on it all, it looks like for some rows, first two columns got > mangled. Good detective work. So now we at least have a believable theory about *what* is happening (something is stomping the first 8 data bytes of these particular rows), if not *w

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 11/04/2011 01:47 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:43:55PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: Does it tell you anything? You are very thorough. I hate mysteries. Especially the ones that break stuff. Know the feeling. I don't know enough about Postgres internal

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:43:55PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > >Does it tell you anything? > You are very thorough. I hate mysteries. Especially the ones that break stuff. > I don't know enough about Postgres internals to be much help there. > All I can point out is the problem seemed to appear

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 11/04/2011 01:17 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 11:03:45PM +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: looking for some other info. will post as soon as i'll gather it, but that will be in utc morning :( I looked closer at the rows that got -1 xobject_id. Does

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-04 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 11:03:45PM +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > looking for some other info. will post as soon as i'll gather it, but > that will be in utc morning :( I looked closer at the rows that got -1 xobject_id. $ select magic_id, count(*) from qqq where xobject_id = -1 group

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:02:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > select * from pg_attribute where attrelid = 'sss.xobjects'::regclass > and attisdropped; no dropped columns. looking for some other info. will post as soon as i'll gather it, but that will be in utc morning :( Best regards, depesz

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > i tried: > create table qqq as select cmax as o_cmax, xmax as o_xmax, cmin as > o_cmin, xmin as o_xmin, ctid as o_ctid, * from sss.xobjects; > but the resulting table didn't have -1 values: Oh, that's pretty interesting ... suggests that the targetlist has

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
> I would like to know the ctid's of the -1 rows in the copied table, > along with the ctid's of the rows they share magic_ids with, and > the ctid's of the rows with those same magic_ids in the original. > I'm wondering whether the affected rows are physically clustered ... i tried: create table

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver writes: > On Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:03:12 pm hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >> as you can see counts of rows in created table are more or less >> sensible, but whatever method I used - create table as, insert into, >> using sychronized_scans (initially) or not (later) - copy

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:03:12 pm hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:55:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > So, did some tests: > > as you can see counts of rows in created table are more or less > sensible, but whatever method I used - create table as, insert int

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:55:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > > index on xobject_id might be corrupted, but it doesn't explain that I > > don't see duplicates with group_by/having query on xobjects, which uses > > seqscan: > > I was just going to ask you to check

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:30:34 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:05:38 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:04:19AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > > So

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > other tests are running, but simple question - how to get number of rows > affected from psql? > create table xxx as select * from xobjects; > returns just: > SELECT We fixed that in 9.0, but 8.4 won't provide the count (unless you care to patch it). That's w

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:23:01AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:05:38 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:04:19AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id > > > in the

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 04:21:37PM +0100, Alban Hertroys wrote: > On 3 November 2011 09:25, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > > All looks good. pg_dump of the table also doesn't show any strange > > problems, and is duplicate free. But: > > > > $ create table zzz as select * from sss.xobject

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 8:05:38 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:04:19AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id > > in the source table? > > yes. min value of xobject_id is 1000, and we had tr

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 3 November 2011 09:25, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > All looks good. pg_dump of the table also doesn't show any strange problems, > and is duplicate free. But: > > $ create table zzz as select * from sss.xobjects; > SELECT > > $ select xobject_id, count(*) from zzz group by 1 having c

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:04:19AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > So just to be clear there is and never has been a -1 value for xobject_id in > the > source table? yes. min value of xobject_id is 1000, and we had trigger in place on the table which logged all inserts/updates/deletes and the val

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:15:22 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 07:00:30AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > I also verified that there are no concurrent updates that would set > > > xobject_id to -1, so it's not a problem of isolation. > > > > > > During the n

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:55:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > index on xobject_id might be corrupted, but it doesn't explain that I > > don't see duplicates with group_by/having query on xobjects, which uses > > seqscan: > I was just going to ask you to check that. Weird as can be. > Does plain ol

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes: > index on xobject_id might be corrupted, but it doesn't explain that I > don't see duplicates with group_by/having query on xobjects, which uses > seqscan: I was just going to ask you to check that. Weird as can be. Does plain old "SELECT COUNT(*)" show a diff

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Alban Hertroys wrote: > On 3 November 2011 15:15, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > >> Do the xobject_id values have other negative numbers or is -1 just a > >> special > >> case? The only thing I can think of is a corrupted index on xobject_id. > > > >

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 3 November 2011 15:15, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >> Do the xobject_id values have other negative numbers or is -1 just a special >> case? The only thing I can think of is a corrupted index on xobject_id. > > minimal xobject_id in source table is 1000. > > index on xobject_id might be cor

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 07:00:30AM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > I also verified that there are no concurrent updates that would set > > xobject_id to -1, so it's not a problem of isolation. > > > > During the night I repeated the procedure and the rows that got duplicated > > seem to be the sam

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem with create table as select * from table;

2011-11-03 Thread Adrian Klaver
On Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:25:58 am hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > Hi > We have pretty weird situation, which seems to be impossible, but perhaps > you'll notice something that will let me fix the problem. > > System: SunOS 5.11 snv_130 > Pg: PostgreSQL 8.4.7 on i386-pc-solaris2.11,

Re: [GENERAL] Strange Problem

2007-07-13 Thread Jim Nasby
On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Gustavo Ces wrote: Hi all, I´ve got a strange problem, hope you could help. I´ve got a table (a ) with n tuples, and two fields , birthplace and birth date. There´s another table ( say b) with m tuples, where i´ve got a lot of polygons ( with their code, sam

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with pl/pgsql function caching of bad values

2005-07-11 Thread snacktime
> > One other thing about our particular setup is that we use separate > > schema's for all user data and the functions go in the public schema. > > So before executing this function we issue something like 'set_path to > > username,public'. > > Mph. Are you expecting the function to work for mor

Re: [GENERAL] strange problem with pl/pgsql function caching of bad values

2005-07-11 Thread Tom Lane
snacktime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a very strange issue that I'm not sure how to debug. Hm, are you certain there is always only one row for each value of s_oid? This command: > status := active from recurbilling_transactions where s_oid = in_s_oid; is going to give you a random one

RE: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Rich Shepard
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Robert D. Nelson wrote: > Try uninstalling everything related to postgres that is now installed. Then > remove /var/lib/pgsql and any data directories that may exist. Start from > scratch. Oh, and as to order? I just installed them all together, like "rpm > -ivh postgresql-7.

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Lamar Owen
Rich Shepard wrote: > Thanks, Lamar. I upgraded the server package, and that appeared to work > just fine. Then I installed the others. Is 'initdb' the proper way to > restart everything, and creat a new /var/lib/pgsql? It's been a while since > I worked with postgres, but I need to really dig i

RE: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Robert D. Nelson
> I actually do understand the differences among -i (install) -U (upgrade) >and -F (freshen). What I don't understand is why what _should_ work _isn't_ >working. > > For example, as Lamar and others suggested: > >[root@salmo rshepard]# rpm -qa | grep postgres >postgresql-server-6.5.3-1 >postgres

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Rich Shepard
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > Once you have verified with rpm -qa|grep postgres that there are no more > postgresql RPM's on your system, then you will need to clean out the old > 6.5.3 data directory (rm -rf /var/lib/pgsql). > > Now you should be able to install the new RPMset. Tha

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Lamar Owen
Rich Shepard wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > > The result of 'rpm -qa|grep postgres' would be educational here. > [root@salmo rshepard]# rpm -qa | grep postgres > postgresql-server-6.5.3-1 > postgresql-test-6.5.3-1 > postgresql-7.0.3-2 > "Aha, I said. The rpm database thinks

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-17 Thread Rich Shepard
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > The result of 'rpm -qa|grep postgres' would be educational here. I actually do understand the differences among -i (install) -U (upgrade) and -F (freshen). What I don't understand is why what _should_ work _isn't_ working. For example, as Lamar and o

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-15 Thread Rich Shepard
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > Use --nodeps to override dependencies. It is complaining because RPM > apparently has no record of /lib/cpp -- rpm --rebuilddb may be needed. > RPM's dependencies are not checked against the filesystem, but against > the RPM database. You can verify this

Re: [GENERAL] Strange problem upgrading to 7.0.3x

2000-11-15 Thread Lamar Owen
Rich Shepard wrote: > So, can someone please explain to me why the 7.0.3-1 package complains > that /lib/cpp isn't there when it is? FWIW, I got the same error when I > tried using the --force switch with rpm. Something's screwy here. Use --nodeps to override dependencies. It is complaining be