RE: System tables since 7.0.0

From: Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Developers List (E-mail)" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: System tables since 7.0.0
Date: 2000-07-19 15:26:30
Message-ID: 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478CF1B112@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

That's what I thought. Yes, it is 7.0.* releases the reports are coming
from. One has been solved (they were closing the connection before using
it), but the other one this morning, and one this afternoon are still
puzzling...

Peter

--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support Mushroom
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 4:13 PM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] System tables since 7.0.0

Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> Has anything changed in the system tables pg_proc or pg_type since 7.0.0
was
> released?

No ... we don't change system tables in patch releases, as a matter of
policy.

The current development tip is another story of course, but I assume
you are looking at reports from people running 7.0.*. Might be useful
to get them to try the same queries in psql.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-19 15:45:19 Re: btree split logic is fragile in the presence of lar ge index items
Previous Message Karel Zak 2000-07-19 15:24:46 Hello PL/Python