The administors (that are not from my company) are strongly against changing the Postgresql version :( so if this is a bug from Postgresql they want me to show a documentation that guarantees them that it will be fixed on an upgrade. On 05/10/2014 17:06, Andy Colson wrote: > On 10/05/2014 10:00 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> On 10/05/2014 07:37 AM, Tim Mickelson wrote: >>> Sorry about that, the precise version is: "PostgreSQL 9.1.9 on >>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat >>> 4.4.7-3), 64-bit" >> >> Well 9.1 is at .14 now, so on general principles it would be a good >> idea to upgrade. That being said I do not see anything in the release >> notes from .10 to .14 that applies. Though to be truthful I did not >> read every line. Before upgrading you could try what Andy suggested >> which is to REINDEX(tmpautenticazione). See here for the REINDEX >> caveats, and a way to INDEX CONCURRENTLY: >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-reindex.html >> >>> >>> > > I thought .11 sounded like a good candidate. Especially the part: > > allowing tuples to escape freezing, causing those rows to become > invisible once 2^31 transactions have elapsed > > -Andy -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
