Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2015-05-04 Thread mark
Did this every go any further? I wrote some data transformation script at work, and after seeing with count -2017657667 (and similar) in my scripts log I got a bit worried. seeing else where were folks just run a full on count(*) later to check counts but that is even MORE time and I was

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-02-02 Thread Vik Fearing
On 02/01/2014 02:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 02:25:16AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: OK, thanks for the feedback. I understand now. The contents of the string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of the string in the wire protocol doesn't change.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes: Without re-doing the work, my IRC logs show that I was bothered by this in src/backend/tcop/postgres.c: max_rows = pq_getmsgint(input_message, 4); I needed to change max_rows to int64 which meant I had to change pq_getmsgint to

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:08:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-07-24 13:48:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes: Also worth mentioning is bug #7766. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1tlli5-0007tr...@wrigleys.postgresql.org Yeah, did you

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Vik Fearing
On 01/31/2014 06:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:08:32PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-07-24 13:48:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes: Also worth mentioning is bug #7766.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: Application code that relies on the values already has problems though since the returned values are pretty bogus now. Including the fact that it can return 0 as the number of modified rows which is checked for more frequently

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so someone else could have taken over. OK, so that

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Vik Fearing
On 01/31/2014 10:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I was changing the

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2014-01-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 02:25:16AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: OK, thanks for the feedback. I understand now. The contents of the string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of the string in the wire protocol doesn't change. Let's wait for Vik to reply and I think

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2013-07-24 Thread Vik Fearing
On 07/22/2013 06:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Natalie Wenz nataliew...@ebureau.com wrote: Hi all, I am moving some data from one table to another in 9.2.4, and keep seeing this strange scenario: insert into newtable select data from oldtable where proc_date = x

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2013-07-24 Thread Vik Fearing
On 07/24/2013 04:04 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: On 07/22/2013 06:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Natalie Wenz nataliew...@ebureau.com wrote: Hi all, I am moving some data from one table to another in 9.2.4, and keep seeing this strange scenario: insert into newtable

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Lane
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes: Also worth mentioning is bug #7766. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1tlli5-0007tr...@wrigleys.postgresql.org Yeah, did you read that whole thread? The real issue here is going to be whether client-side code falls over on wider-than-32-bit

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2013-07-24 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-07-24 13:48:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes: Also worth mentioning is bug #7766. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1tlli5-0007tr...@wrigleys.postgresql.org Yeah, did you read that whole thread? The real issue here is going to be whether

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Insert result does not match record count

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I think fixing this for 9.4 is fine, but due to the compat issues I think it's to late for 9.3. Agreed -- this is effectively a protocol change, albeit a pretty minor one, so I can't see back-patching it. regards, tom lane