Re: is this a known bug in 9.6?

From: Torsten Förtsch <tfoertsch123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is this a known bug in 9.6?
Date: 2016-12-13 19:10:19
Message-ID: CAKkG4_ns-_88Rin7rShKDCxcNeb7xgXaydsrF3hQ0poY2jHBeg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Thanks Tom

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as
> > expected before 9.5. No idea offhand what broke it.
>
> The answer is, I broke it, through some ill-advised neatnik-ism :-(,
> ie clearing a field I thought would be unused but it wasn't.
>
> Fix pushed. Thanks for the report!
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Torsten Förtsch 2016-12-13 20:00:18 vacuum freeze in 96
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-12-13 18:35:00 Re: pg_dump and quoted identifiers