Re: BUG #11528: Max Index Keys - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Paul Dasari
Subject Re: BUG #11528: Max Index Keys
Date
Msg-id CAFgphJozq8tua6bovLxxANe_u6AyNw9tWoViKPTHCnQb7JUqjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #11528: Max Index Keys  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
Sure. Thanks Tom and John!
On Sep 30, 2014 4:44 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> > if its a Redshift specific bug, which that seems to imply, then you'll
> > need to take that up with Amazon, as Redshift is a fork of a rather old
> > and no longer supported version of PostgreSQL
>
> max_index_keys is a GUC variable that reflects a server build
> parameter, namely the maximum number of columns allowed in an index.
> I am guessing that the JDBC driver is trying to read that variable
> and it's not working because Redshift is descended from a PG version
> that predates whenever we added that GUC.  (Which was a long time
> ago :-(.)  I have no idea *why* the JDBC driver would need to know that.
>
> You really need to ask about this on the pgsql-jdbc mailing list,
> not here.  There may not be a good solution other than using an ancient
> JDBC driver with Redshift ... but the people who would know read that
> list.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #11526: WITH tables not accessible from function
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #11524: Unable to add value to ENUM when having AUTOCOMMIT disabled in psql