On Monday 06 November 2006 13:12, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:02 +, Dave Page wrote:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
> > >> adminpack doesn't have an
Tom Lane wrote:
> While there's not anything wrong with this proposed patch in itself,
> I have to admit that I don't see the point.
The points are:
1. It is just unpleasant to leave the overflow.
2. It is not easy for users to understand what they should do when they
encounter the error messag
On Sunday 12 November 2006 16:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 13:01 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no ad
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 10:31:17PM +0100, Chris Mair wrote:
> Again, no problem here.
> Some version infos are below.
Ok, here's a long shot: the error involves /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a
which is supplied by libc6-dev. Does the dev package you have match the
actual C library. (bit hard to see how
> > > i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this
> > > fail...
> >
> > Just checked: no problems here on a stock 3.1.
> > What ./configure switches did you use?
> >
>
> ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql/pgsql
> --enable-debug--enable-cassert --enable-depend
>
Again,
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 13:01 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no advantage for vacuum with
> > > overflow
> >
> > No need to VAC
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is a server bug, I will post to hackers for you, it has little
to do with JDBC, however the ? can't be a column in a prepared statement
I cannot reproduce any problem using what I think is equivalent in libpq:
I thought we got th
On 11/12/06, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 04:06:03PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >> /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(elf-init.oS)(.text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0):
> >> In function `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx':
> >> : multiple definition of `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx'
> >I had th
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 04:06:03PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >> /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(elf-init.oS)(.text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0):
> >> In function `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx':
> >> : multiple definition of `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx'
> >I had that error once and it was caused by a dodgy ver
On 11/12/06, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:31:24PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Hi...
>
> i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this fail...
> /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(elf-init.oS)(.text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0):
> In function `__i686.
On 11/12/06, Chris Mair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this fail...
Just checked: no problems here on a stock 3.1.
What ./configure switches did you use?
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql/pgsql
--enable-debug--enable-cassert --e
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:31:24PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Hi...
>
> i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this fail...
> /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(elf-init.oS)(.text.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx+0x0):
> In function `__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx':
> : multiple definition of
> i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this fail...
Just checked: no problems here on a stock 3.1.
What ./configure switches did you use?
Bye, Chris.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
Hi,
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 01:27 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
> Everything goes into /usr/local/pg7.4 and /usr/local/pg8.1, init
> scripts are /etc/init.d/postgres8.1, /etc/init.d/postgres7.4
/usr/local is not the right place for a database server, per Linux FSH.
> spec file(s) available on request
Hi...
i'm using debian sarge and when trying to compile 8.2beta3 got this fail...
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline
-Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wno-error
-L../../../../src/port -Wl,-rpath,'/usr/local/pgsql/pgsql/lib'
preproc.o type.o ecpg.o ecpg_keywords.o
On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no advantage for vacuum with
> > overflow
>
> No need to VACUUM the indexes, which is the most expensive part. The
> more index
[moving to -hackers]
I wrote:
I have made some progress with what I think is needed to have two
interpreters for plperl. This is a lot harder than the pltcl case for
two reasons: 1. there are no restrictions on having 2 tcl
interpreters, and 2. tcl does not need to save and restore contex
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:27:26AM -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
> My solution was to create RPMs with the version number embedded in the
> name. Thus for 7.4.13 and 8.1.5 I have:
>
> postgres7.4-13-1_fc6.x86_64.rpm
> postgres8.1-5-1_fc6.x86_64.rpm
>
> Everything goes into /usr/local/pg7.4 and
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 05:56:03PM +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As some of you already know, I have been working on multiple postmaster
> + RPM issue for some time. We are approaching 8.2.0, and I still could
> not complete this.
>
> Also, I'm having problems with my eyes which pre
19 matches
Mail list logo
