On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:56 -0700
Tom Lane wrote:
> James Le Cuirot writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> PG is not capable of executing queries that are not in
> >> transactions, so yes, PQsendQuery will create a single-statement
> >> transaction if you haven't sent BEGIN. However, there's a huge
James Le Cuirot writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> PG is not capable of executing queries that are not in transactions,
>> so yes, PQsendQuery will create a single-statement transaction if you
>> haven't sent BEGIN. However, there's a huge difference for the
>> purposes we're discussing here: PQsendQu
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:02:09 -0700
Tom Lane wrote:
> James Le Cuirot writes:
> > This got me wondering what Rails uses. I dug into ActiveRecord and
> > found that apart from the odd call to PQexec with hardcoded single
> > statements, it uses PQsendQuery. The libpq docs state a few of the
> > di
James Le Cuirot writes:
> This got me wondering what Rails uses. I dug into ActiveRecord and
> found that apart from the odd call to PQexec with hardcoded single
> statements, it uses PQsendQuery. The libpq docs state a few of the
> differences but don't mention whether PQsendQuery automatically c
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:59 AM, James Le Cuirot
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:23:02 -0500
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> To be clear, Tom was advising not to rely on some of the quirky
>> aspects of -c. psql as it stands right now has a some limitations:
>> single transaction mode does not work w
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:23:02 -0500
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:30 AM, James Le Cuirot
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:21:44 -0500
> > Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >
> >> > The cookbook currently uses PQexec so multiple SQL commands are
> >> > wrapped in a transaction unless
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:30 AM, James Le Cuirot
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:21:44 -0500
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>> > The cookbook currently uses PQexec so multiple SQL commands are
>> > wrapped in a transaction unless an explicit transaction
>> > instruction appears. I don't want to change
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:30:15 +0200
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:18 PM, James Le Cuirot
> wrote:
>
> > > Also - I have no idea what "peer authentication" has to do with Pg
> > > gem - care to elaborate? The gem is for client, and authentication
> > > happens in se
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:34:57 -0500
Jerry Sievers wrote:
> > The cookbook currently uses PQexec so multiple SQL commands are
> > wrapped in a transaction unless an explicit transaction
> > instruction appears. I don't want to change this behaviour but
> > the only way to get exactly the same effec
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:21:44 -0500
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > The cookbook currently uses PQexec so multiple SQL commands are
> > wrapped in a transaction unless an explicit transaction
> > instruction appears. I don't want to change this behaviour but
> > the only way to get exactly the same effe
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:04:44 -0700
Tom Lane wrote:
> James Le Cuirot writes:
> > hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >> Perhaps you can explain what is the functionality you want to
> >> achieve, as I, for one, don't understand. Do you want transactions?
> >> Or not?
>
> > I want an implicit tr
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:43 AM, James Le Cuirot
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been using the Chef database cookbook and found it
> frustrating because it doesn't allow you to use peer
> authentication. The client process generally runs as root and
> connects to PostgreSQL using the Ruby pg gem.
>
> I
James Le Cuirot writes:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
>> Perhaps you can explain what is the functionality you want to
>> achieve, as I, for one, don't understand. Do you want transactions?
>> Or not?
> I want an implicit transaction around the whole script if no explicit
> transactions are
James Le Cuirot writes:
> Hello,
>
> I've been using the Chef database cookbook and found it
> frustrating because it doesn't allow you to use peer
> authentication. The client process generally runs as root and
> connects to PostgreSQL using the Ruby pg gem.
>
> I have patched it to shell out to
Re: James Le Cuirot 2014-06-25 <20140625144325.49d1124d@red.yakaraplc.local>
> Hello,
>
> I've been using the Chef database cookbook and found it
> frustrating because it doesn't allow you to use peer
> authentication. The client process generally runs as root and
> connects to PostgreSQL using th
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:18 PM, James Le Cuirot
wrote:
> > Also - I have no idea what "peer authentication" has to do with Pg
> > gem - care to elaborate? The gem is for client, and authentication
> > happens in server, so ... ?
> Right but peer authentication is all to do with the operating sys
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:42:53 +0200
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Le Cuirot
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:24:53 -0400
> > Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:16:19PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > > > Same problem as
Perhaps you can explain what is the functionality you want to achieve, as
I, for one, don't understand. Do you want transactions? Or not?
Also - I have no idea what "peer authentication" has to do with Pg gem -
care to elaborate? The gem is for client, and authentication happens in
server, so ...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:37:11PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> Sorry, you're missing the point. I'm trying not to alter the existing
> behaviour of the Chef database cookbook
Ah, got it. Sorry, I'm clueless. No, I don't think I have a
suggestion, then.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycan
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:24:53 -0400
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:16:19PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > Same problem as stdin, the transactional behaviour is different.
> > There is the --single-transaction option but as the man page says...
> >
> > "If the script itself
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:16:19PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> Same problem as stdin, the transactional behaviour is different. There
> is the --single-transaction option but as the man page says...
>
> "If the script itself uses BEGIN, COMMIT, or ROLLBACK, this option will
> not have the desi
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:09:18 -0400
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:43:25PM +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>
> > The cookbook currently uses PQexec so multiple SQL commands are
> > wrapped in a transaction unless an explicit transaction
> > instruction appears. I don't want to c
Hello,
I've been using the Chef database cookbook and found it
frustrating because it doesn't allow you to use peer
authentication. The client process generally runs as root and
connects to PostgreSQL using the Ruby pg gem.
I have patched it to shell out to psql instead. This has the
added benefi
23 matches
Mail list logo
