Bruce Momjian schrieb:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite
happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I
Hi,
I am trying to build Postgres (8.3.5) from source on Windows XP using Visual
Studio 2005 as per the instructions in the PostgreSQL documentation. The
problem is that the uuild.lib and uuid.h files are not tracable though I have
done the requisite downloads from uuid and ossp link
Hi.
Ooops, I forgot adjustment completely to Ralf-san. Although Ralf-san understood
at the time, he demanded to wait very busily sorry.
some infomation. this was due to be contained by 1.6.3/4.
This is build the MinGW + gcc.
http://winpg.jp/~saito/pg_work/OSSP_win32/
as for MS-VC++,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Scara Maccaim_li...@yahoo.it wrote:
Hi all,
following the link in
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Query_progress_indication
but mostly:
http://www.postech.ac.kr/~swhwang/progress2.pdf [1]
I'm trying to write an implementation of the dne method in
I'd like some brief feedback on this idea before I try to make a real
proposal.
The use case is this:
You have an application with several roles:
* admin user - owns all the objects related to that application
* normal user - INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE plus sequence usage
* read-only user - for
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I'd like some brief feedback on this idea before I try to make a real
proposal.
The use case is this:
You have an application with several roles:
* admin user - owns all the objects related to that application
* normal user - INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
Hi,
I think that our dependencies for generated header files (gram.h,
fmgroids.h, probes.h) are not as good as they could be. What we do
right now is make src/backend/Makefile rebuild these before recursing
through its subdirectories. This works OK for a top-level make, but
if you run make
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:12 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
It seems to me that you're duplicating the functionality that is already
possible by using groups. i.e. grant the permissions to the group and
add users to the group as appropriate.
Take the use case in my email. You would have to grant a
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
My idea is to have a GRANT mask:
CREATE ROLE foo_ro GRANT (SELECT ON TABLE, USAGE ON SCHEMA) FROM foo;
You haven't really explained what foo is here. If it's a single
object then I don't think this offers any leverage. If it's a
placeholder or class
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
My idea is to have a GRANT mask:
CREATE ROLE foo_ro GRANT (SELECT ON TABLE, USAGE ON SCHEMA) FROM foo;
You haven't really explained what foo is here. If it's a single
object then I don't think this
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
My idea is to have a GRANT mask:
CREATE ROLE foo_ro GRANT (SELECT ON TABLE, USAGE ON SCHEMA) FROM foo;
You haven't really explained what foo is here.
I meant for
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I meant for foo to be a user. foo_ro would be the read-only version,
who has a strict subset of foo's permissions.
I see. It seems like rather a complicated (and expensive) mechanism
for a pretty narrow use-case. It'd only help for the
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:52:54PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I meant for foo to be a user. foo_ro would be the read-only
version, who has a strict subset of foo's permissions.
I see. It seems like rather a complicated (and expensive)
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Jeff Davispg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I'd like some brief feedback on this idea before I try to make a real
proposal.
The use case is this:
You have an application with several roles:
* admin user - owns all the objects related to that application
* normal
David Fetter wrote:
* Users who come from MySQL every once in a while, annoyed that we
don't support GRANT ... * syntax.
I'm missing what's wrong with a wild-card GRANT syntax for this case.
Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not work
prospectively.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
* Users who come from MySQL every once in a while, annoyed that
we don't support GRANT ... * syntax.
I'm missing what's wrong with a wild-card GRANT syntax for this
case.
Without a major
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 17:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I do to some degree share Tom's worry that this is an idiosyncratic
solution to a tiny subset of the problem space.
I share the concern. However, I don't know if it's a tiny subset or
not; I think we'll have to get some feedback from users
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
object that does not currently exist.
There have
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:16 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
The users I'm targeting with my idea are: * Users who have a fairly
simple set of users and permissions, and who want a simple picture
of the permissions in their system for reassurance/verification.
I don't know of a case that
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:38 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
changes. Are we restarting them here?
I don't remember seeing anything in those discussions that really
materialized. Can you point me to something that you think is a
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions
David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
* Users who come from MySQL every once in a while, annoyed that
we don't support GRANT ... * syntax.
I'm missing what's wrong with a wild-card GRANT
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 06:28:32PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
* Users who come from MySQL every once in a while, annoyed that
we don't support GRANT ... * syntax.
Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On 26. Juni 2009 13:08:37 +0900 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
wrote:
* Is the named large object (including fully qualified one) worth?
It will enables us to specify a largeobject with human readable
identifier string.
I don't understand the notion of
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that our dependencies for generated header files (gram.h,
fmgroids.h, probes.h) are not as good as they could be. What we do
right now is make src/backend/Makefile rebuild these before recursing
through its
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
Takahiroitagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
contrib/dblink seems to have no treatments for query cancels.
(1) Users need to wait for completion of remote query.
(2) PGresult objects will be memory leak.
Here is a patch to fix the issues. I hope
26 matches
Mail list logo
