Обсуждение: Addendum on stored procedure array limits
I'm running RHEL 3.0 and postgreSQL 8.1.4, compiled from source. Paul
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:13:04PM -0400, Paul B. Anderson wrote: > I'm running RHEL 3.0 and postgreSQL 8.1.4, compiled from source. Have you tried enforcing that there's no NULLs in the arrays? That code is pretty new (in fact, I thought it was only in 8.2...), so it's possible that therein lies the bug. I'd also look into the size of the varchars... if they're big enough you could be hitting a memory limit somewhere. In any case, the error message could certainly use improving... :) -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
There are definitely nulls in there, and in the fields where the error is signaled. I missed in my reading that they are not allowed.
Thanks.
Paul
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Thanks.
Paul
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:13:04PM -0400, Paul B. Anderson wrote:I'm running RHEL 3.0 and postgreSQL 8.1.4, compiled from source.Have you tried enforcing that there's no NULLs in the arrays? That code is pretty new (in fact, I thought it was only in 8.2...), so it's possible that therein lies the bug. I'd also look into the size of the varchars... if they're big enough you could be hitting a memory limit somewhere. In any case, the error message could certainly use improving... :)
You might want to try 8.2 beta then, as support for NULLs in arrays was just added. Testing of that magnitude would be great! On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:08:19PM -0400, Paul B. Anderson wrote: > There are definitely nulls in there, and in the fields where the error > is signaled. I missed in my reading that they are not allowed. > > Thanks. > > Paul > > > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:13:04PM -0400, Paul B. Anderson wrote: > > > >>I'm running RHEL 3.0 and postgreSQL 8.1.4, compiled from source. > >> > > > >Have you tried enforcing that there's no NULLs in the arrays? That code > >is pretty new (in fact, I thought it was only in 8.2...), so it's > >possible that therein lies the bug. > > > >I'd also look into the size of the varchars... if they're big enough you > >could be hitting a memory limit somewhere. > > > >In any case, the error message could certainly use improving... :) > > -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)