Thanks a lot Marti for your response.=0A=A0=0AThanks,=0AAnjali=0A=0A=0A=0AO=
n Monday, 20 January 2014 3:27 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:=
=0A =0AOn Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM,=A0 <anjali_524@yahoo.co.in> wrote=
:=0A> The Postgres version on which the issue was reported is 8.2.2=0A=0ADo=
you realize that this version was released almost 7 years ago? The=0Alast =
bugfix release in the 8.2 series was 8.2.23, only 2 years ago. If=0Ayou don=
't apply bugfixes then you *will* eventually hit bugs.=0A=0A> I verified th=
e issue fix information into postgres release notes=0A> 9.0.4, 9.0.15, and =
9.1 but could not find anything related to this issue.=0A=0AIt was probably=
some sort of index corruption, which allowed duplicate=0Avalues to be inse=
rted. There have been a dozen bugs of this kind fixed=0Aand it's hard to te=
ll which one.=0A=0A> We have upgraded our Postgres version to 9.0.4=0A=0AWa=
it, what? 9.0.15 is the most recent version in the 9.0 series. You=0Ashould=
*always* use the newest minor version in a series and update=0Awhen new ve=
rsions are released. Otherwise you will hit bugs again that=0Ahave been fix=
ed for years.=0A=0ARegards,=0AMarti=0A=0A=0A=0A-- =0ASent via pgsql-bugs ma=
iling list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)=0ATo make changes to your subscripti=
on:=0Ahttp://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
