| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Hartwig <daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com>, "Billy G(dot) Allie" <Bill(dot)Allie(at)mug(dot)org>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Indixing problems... |
| Date: | 1998-09-09 06:07:52 |
| Message-ID: | 35F61B38.FFC59D61@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Thanks so much. Now index problems have gone from my LinuxPPC box!
Whoo hoo! Thanks Vadim! Indices are much happier on my Linux box also :)
> Only remaining problem seems somewhat related to view. Still the
> select_views test and "select * from pg_user" produces core dumps.
Sadly, that is still true also. As I mentioned earlier, the actual
segfault happens when memory is free'd toward the end of a query. But of
course there is some problem earlier when the memory was allocated...
This is probably unrelated, but is it expected that the system views
have rule names prefixed with "_ret" whereas a view I create myself has
a name prefixed with "_RET"? Should initdb surround some of these names
in double quotes while it is doing its brute-force shadowing?
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | geo | 1998-09-09 06:09:29 | Would you let me know how ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-09-09 04:25:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Indixing problems... |