Mailing lists [pgsql-bugs]

1 October

• 08:24   Re: Potential bug: Enforcing/not enforcing a CHECK constraint fails on an empty table David Rowley
• 12:32   Revoke role membership does not remove cascade privileges Virender Singla
• 12:34   Re: Potential bug: Enforcing/not enforcing a CHECK constraint fails on an empty table Erki Eessaar
• 13:46   Re: BUG #19062: PostgreSQL 12.22 does not compile because of conflicting types for CollationCreate Peter Dyballa
• 13:53   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 18:12   IN List operator , where list of values are over a number of lines  White, Ian Keith
• 18:55   [Bug] Usage of stale dead_items pointer in parallel vacuum Kevin Oommen Anish
• 21:16   Re: IN List operator , where list of values are over a number of lines Pavel Stehule

2 October

• 03:08   Re: BUG #19062: PostgreSQL 12.22 does not compile because of conflicting types for CollationCreate Thomas Munro
• 04:44   Re: BUG #19062: PostgreSQL 12.22 does not compile because of conflicting types for CollationCreate Tom Lane
• 07:16   Re: [Bug] Usage of stale dead_items pointer in parallel vacuum Richard Guo
• 08:09   Re: [Bug] Usage of stale dead_items pointer in parallel vacuum John Naylor
• 11:32   RE: IN List operator , where list of values are over a number of lines White, Ian Keith
• 12:33   Re: [Bug] Usage of stale dead_items pointer in parallel vacuum Richard Guo
• 14:01   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 14:08   BUG #19068: postgresql-server-dev-17 from apt.postgresql.org installs libpq-int.h for 18 version PG Bug reporting form
• 16:11   BUG #19069: pg_advisory_xact_lock() in a WITH query doesn't work PG Bug reporting form
• 19:25   BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table PG Bug reporting form
• 22:53   Re: BUG #19062: PostgreSQL 12.22 does not compile because of conflicting types for CollationCreate Peter Dyballa
• 23:13   Re: BUG #19069: pg_advisory_xact_lock() in a WITH query doesn't work Tom Lane

3 October

• 01:20   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Masahiko Sawada
• 03:57   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 09:23   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 09:53   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Laurenz Albe
• 10:56   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 12:28   Re: [Bug] Usage of stale dead_items pointer in parallel vacuum John Naylor
• 12:34   RE: BUG #19069: pg_advisory_xact_lock() in a WITH query doesn't work Maciej Walczak
• 13:11   BUG #19071: commit b448f1c8d broke LEFT JOIN pushdown PG Bug reporting form
• 14:00   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 17:31   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Tom Lane
• 21:48   Re: BUG #19071: commit b448f1c8d broke LEFT JOIN pushdown Tom Lane

4 October

• 00:21   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Masahiko Sawada
• 05:39   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 06:19   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used David Rowley
• 07:00   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Wyatt Alt
• 19:51   BUG #19072: New-style SQL language function referencing a temp table behaves oddly PG Bug reporting form
• 20:17   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Tom Lane
• 20:26   Re: BUG #19072: New-style SQL language function referencing a temp table behaves oddly Tom Lane
• 23:02   Re: BUG #19072: New-style SQL language function referencing a temp table behaves oddly Bernice Southey

5 October

• 03:34   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used David Rowley
• 05:29   BUG #19073: there are meaningless code in _SPI_execute_plan() when canSetTag is true PG Bug reporting form
• 08:20   BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases PG Bug reporting form
• 09:38   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 09:41   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 11:55   Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 13:05   回复：BUG #19073: there are meaningless code in _SPI_execute_plan() when canSetTag is true webbohan
• 13:06   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Markus KARG
• 13:51   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Thom Brown
• 17:47   Re: BUG #19073: there are meaningless code in _SPI_execute_plan() when canSetTag is true Euler Taveira
• 18:48   Re: BUG #19073: there are meaningless code in _SPI_execute_plan() when canSetTag is true Tom Lane
• 20:15   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 21:09   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Tom Lane
• 22:57   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 23:22   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa

6 October

• 06:37   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 06:42   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Dilip Kumar
• 06:59   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases David Rowley
• 09:22   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Dilip Kumar
• 09:49   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Dilip Kumar
• 12:55   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 13:38   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 13:40   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 13:44   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Álvaro Herrera
• 14:34   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used David Rowley
• 15:04   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Dilip Kumar
• 17:20   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 17:34   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 19:09   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 19:13   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 19:17   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 19:21   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 20:01   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 20:09   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 20:23   BUG #19075: pg_upgradecluster does not copy conf.d/* during cluster upgrade PG Bug reporting form
• 20:29   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 21:04   Re: BUG #19075: pg_upgradecluster does not copy conf.d/* during cluster upgrade Bruce Momjian
• 23:41   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa

7 October

• 00:39   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 09:10   Re: Postgres: Queries are too slow after upgrading to PG17 from PG15 Sajith Prabhakar Shetty
• 10:15   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 10:34   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 12:50   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 13:59   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 20:25   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Masahiko Sawada
• 22:34   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 22:49   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 22:56   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 23:04   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 23:32   BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow PG Bug reporting form

8 October

• 00:38   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 01:13   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 02:03   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 02:17   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 03:05   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 09:09   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 10:49   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 11:21   Re: BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow Laurenz Albe
• 12:13   Re: BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow David Rowley
• 13:04   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 14:17   Re: BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow Premal Patel
• 14:41   Re: BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow Laurenz Albe
• 15:13   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 16:04   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 16:07   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 20:46   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 22:08   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 23:09   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 23:22   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa

9 October

• 05:16   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 10:40   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 11:35   BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade PG Bug reporting form
• 14:43   BUG #19079: can't dowmload documentation download aborted PG Bug reporting form
• 15:05   Re: BUG #19079: can't dowmload documentation download aborted Daniel Gustafsson
• 16:39   BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug PG Bug reporting form
• 18:44   BUG #19081: Inconsistent target rows seen by the UPDATE and INSERT statements within the same transaction PG Bug reporting form
• 19:56   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Jeff Davis
• 20:17   Re: BUG #19081: Inconsistent target rows seen by the UPDATE and INSERT statements within the same transaction Tom Lane

10 October

• 02:43   Date/Time parsing of ISO 8601 timestamps with commas Zane Duffield
• 04:34   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 06:01   Re:BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table ocean_li_996
• 06:16   Re: BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug John Naylor
• 12:44   BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan PG Bug reporting form
• 12:56   Re: BUG #19076: Generic query plan is extremely slow Andrei Lepikhov
• 13:03   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 14:03   Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table Álvaro Herrera
• 14:14   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Álvaro Herrera
• 17:52   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used Marko Tiikkaja
• 18:40   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Peter Geoghegan
• 19:12   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Matthijs van der Vleuten
• 19:28   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Peter Geoghegan
• 20:09   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Matthijs van der Vleuten
• 20:14   Re:Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table ocean_li_996
• 21:10   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Peter Geoghegan
• 21:22   Re: BUG #19082: Failing assert in index scan Peter Geoghegan
• 23:09   Re: Date/Time parsing of ISO 8601 timestamps with commas Nathan Bossart
• 23:30   Re: Date/Time parsing of ISO 8601 timestamps with commas David G. Johnston
• 23:45   Re: Date/Time parsing of ISO 8601 timestamps with commas Zane Duffield

11 October

• 00:26   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 00:30   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Andres Freund
• 00:36   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 05:00   Re:Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on ahash partition table songjinzhou
• 11:02   Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on ahash partition table ocean_li_996
• 13:19   Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on ahashpartition table songjinzhou
• 15:32   Re: BUG #19006: Assert(BufferIsPinned) in BufferGetBlockNumber() is triggered for forwarded buffer Xuneng Zhou
• 21:34   Re: Re: BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table Álvaro Herrera
• 21:35   Re: BUG #18371: There are wrong constraint residues when detach hash partiton concurrently Álvaro Herrera

12 October

• 11:10   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 11:24   Re: [BUGS] BUG #11500: PRIMARY KEY index not being used David Rowley
• 11:24   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 21:05   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita

13 October

• 15:07   Logical replication fails when partition column order differs from parent Вадим Ковтун
• 15:18   BUG #19083: Foreign inner join is the case for char() keys but not for varchar() PG Bug reporting form
• 16:32   BUG #19084: dump/restore table doesn't work with GENARETED column and custom type and cast in function PG Bug reporting form
• 18:19   Re: BUG #19084: dump/restore table doesn't work with GENARETED column and custom type and cast in function David G. Johnston
• 18:29   Re: BUG #19084: dump/restore table doesn't work with GENARETED column and custom type and cast in function Tom Lane
• 23:18   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Masahiko Sawada

14 October

• 05:06   Re: BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug John Naylor
• 06:59   BUG #19085: Using EXECUTE to run a multi-statement SQL string causes an assertion failure PG Bug reporting form
• 07:28   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 08:34   Re: BUG #19085: Using EXECUTE to run a multi-statement SQL string causes an assertion failure Tom Lane
• 09:53   RE: Logical replication fails when partition column order differs from parent Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
• 11:13   BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. PG Bug reporting form
• 11:15   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Andrew Bille
• 14:39   Re: BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug Heikki Linnakangas
• 17:50   order by alias - doesn't work sometimes? hubert depesz lubaczewski
• 18:10   Re: order by alias - doesn't work sometimes? Tom Lane
• 18:46   Re: order by alias - doesn't work sometimes? hubert depesz lubaczewski
• 18:51   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 22:36   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Nathan Bossart
• 22:50   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane

15 October

• 00:44   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 01:03   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Nathan Bossart
• 02:56   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 05:21   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Andrew Bille
• 05:30   Re: BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug John Naylor
• 11:09   Re: BUG #19080: CancelRequest message documentation bug Magnus Hagander
• 11:22   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Etsuro Fujita
• 11:56   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Álvaro Herrera
• 12:10   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Andrew Bille
• 17:21   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 19:24   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Nathan Bossart
• 21:35   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Masahiko Sawada

16 October

• 00:38   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 00:55   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane
• 01:45   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 01:51   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 02:07   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 02:12   BUG #19089: Mounting Issue PG Bug reporting form
• 02:36   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane
• 03:35   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 03:45   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane
• 04:10   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 04:23   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 04:31   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane
• 04:36   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. David Rowley
• 04:47   Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables. Tom Lane
• 04:53   Re: TRAP: failed Assert("outerPlan != NULL") in postgres_fdw.c Michael Paquier
• 06:29   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Amit Langote
• 07:04   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 08:04   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Amit Langote
• 10:30   Re: BUG #19081: Inconsistent target rows seen by the UPDATE and INSERT statements within the same transaction 崔紫玉
• 12:46   Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Dmitry Fomin
• 19:45   Re: BUG #19089: Mounting Issue Jacob Champion
• 20:27   Re: BUG #19089: Mounting Issue Álvaro Herrera
• 22:40   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Jeff Davis

17 October

• 04:21   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 10:05   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Andrew Bille
• 10:55   Re: Automating Failover Resync & Re-Attach in pgpool2 Bo Peng
• 12:08   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 13:36   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 18:42   Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Casey Shobe
• 23:09   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 23:50   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Álvaro Herrera

18 October

• 00:25   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 00:45   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 01:03   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 01:18   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 01:24   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 01:58   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 03:40   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Yuri Zamyatin
• 04:55   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade Jeff Davis
• 06:11   Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade David Rowley
• 15:06   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Álvaro Herrera
• 19:22   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Álvaro Herrera
• 19:45   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Tom Lane

19 October

• 17:44   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Casey & Gina
• 21:15   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Álvaro Herrera
• 21:48   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Tom Lane
• 22:04   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Jeff Janes
• 22:42   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Casey & Gina
• 23:31   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Tom Lane
• 23:37   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa

20 October

• 01:30   Re: Issues with blocksize smaller than 8KB Tom Lane
• 04:33   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? David Rowley
• 05:30   Re: BUG #19074: pg_dump from v18 loses the NOT NULL flag in the inherited table field when dumping v17-databases Dilip Kumar
• 11:51   Re: PG17.6 zstd handling bug badfilez@gmail.com
• 12:34   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 14:22   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 16:48   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 17:42   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 19:34   Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV) badfilez@gmail.com
• 20:18   Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV) Peter Geoghegan
• 22:09   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? David Rowley
• 22:27   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 23:02   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa

21 October

• 00:06   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? David Rowley
• 00:57   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 01:16   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? David Rowley
• 01:46   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? Marco Boeringa
• 03:44   Re: Potential "AIO / io workers" inter-worker locking issue in PG18? David Rowley
• 04:28   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 08:20   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 09:49   postgres access violation in pg_detoast_datum  Arnd Empting
• 10:05   Re: postgres access violation in pg_detoast_datum David Rowley
• 10:43   BUG #19092: scram_free() will free on address which was not malloc()-ed in pg_scram_mech PG Bug reporting form
• 11:15   TLS verification to intermediate trust anchor with psql Miroslav Pankov
• 11:21   Re: postgres access violation in pg_detoast_datum Álvaro Herrera
• 12:11   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 14:22   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 15:21   Version 18.0 of postgres image in dockerhub - container crashes when starting up Yuval Roth
• 16:14   Re: BUG #19092: scram_free() will free on address which was not malloc()-ed in pg_scram_mech Daniel Gustafsson
• 16:49   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 18:06   Re: BUG #19092: scram_free() will free on address which was not malloc()-ed in pg_scram_mech Tom Lane
• 23:29   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley
• 23:44   Re: TLS verification to intermediate trust anchor with psql Jacob Champion

22 October

• 09:19   Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV) badfilez@gmail.com
• 10:33   ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) Emmanuel Touzery
• 11:02   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 11:30   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 11:44   Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV) badfilez@gmail.com
• 11:48   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) Emmanuel Touzery
• 14:16   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 14:27   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 15:16   BUG #18942 and BUG #18938 solution available in Pg16 latest release 16.10  Ishan Arunkumar Joshi
• 20:01   Re: PG17.6 wal apply bug (SIGSEGV) Peter Geoghegan
• 20:20   Re: Version 18.0 of postgres image in dockerhub - container crashes when starting up Markus KARG

23 October

• 00:04   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 00:13   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 00:23   Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore Nathan Bossart
• 00:36   Re: BUG #18942 and BUG #18938 solution available in Pg16 latest release 16.10 David Rowley
• 00:53   Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore Daniel Gustafsson
• 01:41   Re: BUG #18942 and BUG #18938 solution available in Pg16 latest release 16.10 Euler Taveira
• 03:20   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 03:29   Re: BUG #19092: scram_free() will free on address which was not malloc()-ed in pg_scram_mech Michael Paquier
• 07:48   RE: BUG #18942 and BUG #18938 solution available in Pg16 latest release 16.10 Ishan Arunkumar Joshi
• 09:30   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) Emmanuel Touzery
• 09:41   Re: ERROR: XX000: could not find memoization table entry (reproducible) David Rowley
• 12:09   BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 PG Bug reporting form
• 15:07   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) Amit Langote
• 18:05   Re: BUG #19092: scram_free() will free on address which was not malloc()-ed in pg_scram_mech Jacob Champion

24 October

• 09:20   Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 Xuneng Zhou
• 11:33   Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 xingguo
• 11:47   Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 Xuneng Zhou
• 17:23   BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results PG Bug reporting form
• 18:11   Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 Euler Taveira
• 21:16   psql --echo-queries does not echo all queries Gavin Wahl

25 October

• 01:26   Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore Daniel Gustafsson
• 17:31   Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Tom Lane
• 17:32   Re: psql --echo-queries does not echo all queries Tom Lane

26 October

• 01:03   Re: Segfault in RI UPDATE CASCADE on partitioned tables with LIKE+ATTACH child (attnum drift) David Rowley

27 October

• 07:12   Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 Noah Misch
• 10:56   BUG #19095: Test if function exit() is used fail when linked static PG Bug reporting form
• 13:21   RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Lori Corbani
• 14:34   RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Lori Corbani
• 17:30   Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore Nathan Bossart
• 19:32   RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Lori Corbani
• 22:25   Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Tom Lane
• 22:49   Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore Daniel Gustafsson
• 23:12   Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: BUG #19094: select statement on postgres 17 vs postgres 18 is returning different/duplicate results Tom Lane