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.
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