On 10/06/2014 08:25 AM, Tim Mickelson wrote:
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.
You might want to point them at the release notes that show quite a few
bugs are fixed between 9.1.9 and 9.1.14, not limited to this:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/release-9-1-11.html
However, this release corrects a number of potential data corruption
issues. See the first two changelog entries below to find out whether
your installation has been affected and what steps you can take if so.
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
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
