Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-05 Thread Srinivas Naik
Hi Mark, I took the output of the Postgresql. Please find the output: Package: postgresql-8.3 State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 8.3.9-0ubuntu8.10 Priority: optional Section: misc Maintainer: Martin Pitt martin.p...@ubuntu.com Uncompressed Size: 14.2M Depends: libc6 (= 2.4),

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-05 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 05/05/10 22:13, Srinivas Naik wrote: Hi Mark, I took the output of the Postgresql. Please find the output: Package: postgresql-8.3 State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 8.3.9-0ubuntu8.10 Ok - your bug is fixed in 8.3.10. This should make its way to your Ubuntu apt

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-05 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 06/05/10 09:48, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Ok - your bug is fixed in 8.3.10. This should make its way to your Ubuntu apt repository soon (provided 8.10 is still getting updates that is...). Unfortunately it looks like you may not get this version - see:

[HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Srinivas Naik
Hi, Can any one tell me whats the effect of the below Query SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2); SELECT substring(B'0001' from 4 for -3); its observed that there's an Error invalid memory alloc request size 4244635647 What will actually happen to the Postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 04/05/10 18:47, Srinivas Naik wrote: Hi, Can any one tell me whats the effect of the below Query SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2); SELECT substring(B'0001' from 4 for -3); its observed that there's an Error invalid memory alloc request size 4244635647 What

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Srinivas Naik
Hi Mark, Please find the below details: postgresql-8.3 and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb and its an 32bit Ubuntu. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Mark Kirkwood mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz wrote: On 04/05/10 18:47, Srinivas Naik wrote: Hi, Can

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Srinivas Naik naik.sr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mark,     Please find the below details: postgresql-8.3 and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb and its an 32bit Ubuntu. Err, before you said 8.4.3. Now you're saying 8.3. Those are

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Erik Rijkers
On Tue, May 4, 2010 15:40, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Srinivas Naik naik.sr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mark,     Please find the below details: postgresql-8.3 and UBUNTU-8.10 with linux-image-2.6.27.18-standard_810_i386.deb and its an 32bit Ubuntu. Err, before you

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl wrote: fwiw, results for all current postgres versions: [ only 9.0beta1 is different ] It looks like the relevant commits are: commit 822f2ac5a2ec7c6f10634f62a0b2dc6cc9929759 Author: Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Date: Mon Jan 25

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I think the OP is probably running a version that doesn't include the Jan 7 commit, which was effectively undone by the Jan 25 commit for CVS HEAD. It sure looks like it. It looks like this was intentional based on spec behavior of overlay(), but

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm inclined toward the standard on this one. In a case like this, it seems unlikely that someone

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: We have maintained nonstandard behavior in the past for compatibility reasons, so it's a fair question; however, I'm inclined toward the standard on this one. In a

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: But I don't have strong feelings about it. Nor do I. Perhaps this question should be floated on -general? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Srinivas Naik
I am sorry for that, but I made two different installations and I was messing up with various inputs. Actually, the installed versions are below *postgresql-8.3* *Ubuntu 8.10 with 2.6.27 Kernel* *and its an 32Bit O/S* pgsql$ SELECT substring(B'0001' from 5 for -2); ERROR:invalid

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Srinivas Naik naik.sr...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the installed versions are below *postgresql-8.3* I just wanted to know how severe it is and how it can effect the database to result Memory Corruption/DoS. Well, you're clearly *not* on 8.3.10, or you would not get the error. Perhaps

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 05/05/10 06:24, Srinivas Naik wrote: I am sorry for that, but I made two different installations and I was messing up with various inputs. Actually, the installed versions are below *postgresql-8.3* *Ubuntu 8.10 with 2.6.27 Kernel* *and its an 32Bit O/S* pgsql$ SELECT

Re: [HACKERS] Reg: SQL Query for Postgres 8.4.3

2010-05-04 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 05/05/10 13:15, Mark Kirkwood wrote: Please log into postgres do: SELECT version(); (and Robert suggested) Should read *as* Robert suggested - sorry. Also you could do this from the os: $ aptitude show postgresql-8.3* *which will display more detail for the version. Cheers Mark *