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@aklaver.com
