Re: [DOCS] PostgreSQL docs in ePub format
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:51:23 +0900, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 11:03 +0900, Yuto HAYAMIZU wrote: stylesheet-epub.xml was copied from docbook-xsl package (version 1.75.2+dfsg-5ubuntu1) on Ubuntu 11.10, and modified import/include lines like this: I don't see the point of doing it that way, since the docbook-xsl package already includes everything. I was alien to docbook at that time, and followed instructions of an online tutorial (missed URL) which said "make stylesheet in the same directory of XML file." It worked and I could got an ePub file, though it might not be a right way for making ePub with docbook. -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata")
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our > purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec. The SQL > standard has no concept of privileges on schemas, only ownership. > We do have privileges on schemas, so it seems to me that the consistent > thing would be for this view to show any schema that you either own or > have some privilege on. IMHO, schemata should follow the standard as it does today. Other platforms have privileges on schemas as well, and this sort of thing seems to fall into the same bucket as other platform compatibilities outside the scope of what the standard thinks about, which means you use pg_catalog to access that information rather than information_schema, which should be expected to work consistently on all platforms that implement it. -- Casey Allen Shobe [email protected]
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata")
Casey Allen Shobe writes: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our >> purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec. The SQL >> standard has no concept of privileges on schemas, only ownership. >> We do have privileges on schemas, so it seems to me that the consistent >> thing would be for this view to show any schema that you either own or >> have some privilege on. > IMHO, schemata should follow the standard as it does today. Other > platforms have privileges on schemas as well, and this sort of thing seems > to fall into the same bucket as other platform compatibilities outside the > scope of what the standard thinks about, which means you use pg_catalog to > access that information rather than information_schema, which should be > expected to work consistently on all platforms that implement it. Meh. To me, standards compliance requires that if you have created a SQL-compliant database, you'd better see spec-compliant output from the information schema. As soon as you do something outside the standard (in this instance, grant some privileges on a schema), it becomes a judgment call whether and how that should affect what you see in the information schema. It may be that the current behavior of this view is actually the best thing, but a standards-compliance argument doesn't do anything to convince me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
