Greetings,
* Daniel Gustafsson (dan...@yesql.se) wrote:
> > On 6 Jun 2022, at 15:30, Dong Wook Lee wrote:
>
> > I just wrote a test code for the `pg_buffercache` extension which
> > doesn't not have test code.
>
> Please add this patch to the next commitfest to make sure it's not lost before
>
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > The very specific "it'd be nice to build PG w/o having untrusted
> > languages compiled in" is at least reasonably clearly contained and
> > reasonable to see if we are, in fact,
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I really don't think this is going to be anywhere near as
> > straight-forward as it might appear to be to prevent a superuser from
> > being able to break out of PG.
>
> This gets back
Greetings,
* Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I guess I'd ask again whether we can do both... We've got predefined roles
> like pg_execute_server_program that allow access to COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM,
> but I have no way to categorically disable that ѕort of thing if I wanted
> to
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > It's not just a question of whether it was meant to be SQL-callable --
> > it's also a question of what arguments it was expecting to be called
> > with. At the very least, you can cause the server to core dump if you
>
Greetings (everyone except Israa),
* Israa Odeh (israa.k.o...@gmail.com) wrote:
>Please I need to cancel my subscription to this mailing list, could you
>delete me from it, or tell me how to unsubscribe.
To hopefully forstall general replies and such to this- they've already
been
Greetings,
* Nikolay Shaplov (dh...@nataraj.su) wrote:
> В письме от вторник, 17 мая 2022 г. 23:01:07 MSK пользователь Tom Lane
> написал:
>
> Hi! I came to this branch looking for a patch to review, but I guess I would
> join the discussion instead of reading the code.
Seems that's what
Greetings,
* Israa Odeh (israa2...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> I was wondering if you could provide me with initial feedback on my GSoC
> proposal, as well as if you have any comments about it. And would it be
> possible to know whether I got accepted as a contributor?
Google published this
Greetings,
* Oleksii Kliukin (al...@hintbits.com) wrote:
> > On 18. May 2022, at 17:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2022-May-18, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but what is it that you would actually
> >> consider
> >> a solution? Knowing your current memory consumption
Greetings,
* Jan Wieck (j...@wi3ck.info) wrote:
> On 5/17/22 18:30, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >This isn’t actually a solution though and that’s the problem- you end up
> >using swap but if you use more than “expected” the OOM killer comes in and
> >happily blows you up anyway. C
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 18:12 Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ulimit might be interesting to check into as well. The last time I
> >> looked, it wasn't too helpful for this on Linux, but that was year
Greetings,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 18:12 Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck writes:
> > On 5/17/22 15:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> Thoughts?
>
> > Using cgroups one can actually force a certain process (or user, or
> > service) to use swap if and when that
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> Yeah - I think we had better reserve the fourth bit pattern for
> >> something extensible e.g. another byte or several to specify the
>
Greetings,
An ongoing issue in container environments where Kubernetes is being
used is that setting the overcommit parameters on the base system will
impact all of the processes on that system and not all of them handle
malloc failing as gracefully as PG does and may allocate more than what
they
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Toast compression is supported for LZ4, and thanks to the refactoring
> > work done with compression methods assigned to an attribute, adding
> > support for more methods is
Greetings,
* Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:59:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:04:38AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> >>> The last line should be
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Here, that doesn't seem too likely. You could have a column that
> > contains 'tom' and ['tom'] and [['tom']] and [[['tom']]] and so forth
> > and they all get mapped onto the same bucket and you're sad. But
> > probably
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:59:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:04:38AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >>> The last line should be
> >>>
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:09 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I was thinking more specifically along the lines of "if there's > X GB
> > of WAL that hasn't been archived, give up on archiving a
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
Greetings,
* Martín Marqués (martin.marq...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The typo is in `exist in in a running cluster`. There's two `in` in a row.
Oops, thanks for catching (and thanks to Michael for committing the
fix!).
> P.D.: I was looking at this just because I was looking at an issue
> where
Greetings,
An actual message would be better when sending to this list in the
future. Thanks for your GSoC proposal.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Greetings,
* Vedant Gokhale (gokhalevedan...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I was reading the contributor guidelines and it mentioned sending the
> proposal to this email address. The guidelines also mentioned that you must
> be subscribed to the mailing list. Please let me know if something more has
> to
Greeting,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > Thanks for the comments. Here's a new tool called pg_walcleaner whi
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. Here's a new tool called pg_walcleaner which
> basically deletes (optionally archiving before deletion) the unneeded
> WAL files.
>
> Please provide your thoughts and review the patches.
Greetings,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 18:54 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 6:25 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I don't think we want to be encrypting pg_xact/, so they can get the
> > transaction commit rate from there.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to eventually encrypt SLRU
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 5:30 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 4:05 AM Antonin Houska wrote:
> > > > There are't really that many kinds of files to encrypt:
> > > >
> > > >
Greetings,
* Qiongwen Liu (qiongwen7...@berkeley.edu) wrote:
> Hi, I am Qiongwen Liu, and I am studying at the University of California,
> Berkeley as an economics and computer science major. I am interested in the
> Develop Performance Farm Benchmarks and Website of PostgreSQL in
> this program,
Greetings,
* Samuel Bassaly (shksh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> My name is Samuel Bassaly, and I would like to submit my proposal for this
> year's GSoC.
> Your feedback is highly appreciated.
Great, thanks! Will respond off-list.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 8:21 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Added an explicit 'environment' option to allow for, basically, existing
> > behavior, where we don't mess with the environment variable at all,
> > thou
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:19 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 23:27, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 3:04 PM Magnus Hagander
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:06 PM David Rowley
>
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> The new krb_user_ccache is a lot closer to 'global', though it's
> specifically for user-authenticated backends (allowing the postmaster
> and other things like replication connections to use whatever the
> credential
Greetings,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 07:27 Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 3:04 PM Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:06 PM David Rowley
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 02:38, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> > I think WARNING is fine. After all, the
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Jacob Champion (pchamp...@vmware.com) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 19:39 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Even so, I’m not against adding an option… but exactly how would that
> > > option be configured?
Greetings,
* Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:37 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> > > every user, even those not using the feature. Which
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:27 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I just meant that it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a fixed cost on
> > every user, even those not using the feature. Which you said yourself.
>
> Unfortunately, I think there's
Greetings,
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 13:06 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 11:25:36AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Please find attached an updated patch + commit message. Mostly, I just
> > >
Greetinsg,
* Jacob Champion (pchamp...@vmware.com) wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 19:39 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 18:55 Jacob Champion wrote:
> > > [5] says we have to free the proxy credential with GSS_Release_cred();
> > > I don't
Greetings,
* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote:
> On 4/6/22 09:20, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 4/5/22 22:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-27 16:53:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>> I'm therefore going to commit this series
> >> The new jsonb_sqljson test is, on my machine,
to commit this tomorrow.
Thanks!
Stephen
From 4e53c8252fb1ee32bf9688b553cf1f5876ab234b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephen Frost
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:05:13 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Remove exclusive backup mode
Exclusive-mode backups have been deprecated since 9.6 (when
non-exclusive backups were introduced) du
source beginner.
> That, combined with the fact that I'd really like to contribute to Postgres
> and learn Perl, makes this particular project ideal for me.
Glad to hear that you're interested!
> I want to ask if the mentor of this project (Stephen Frost) could help me
> with my application (i
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I dunno. Compatibility and speed concerns aside, that seems like an awful
> > lot of bits to be expending on every page compared to the value.
>
> I dunno either, but over on the TDE
Greetings,
* Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 07:13:14PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > Looks like this change to an example in func.sgml is not quite right:
> >
> > -postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_walfile_name_offset(pg_stop_backup());
> > +postgres=#
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 15:23:21 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2022-03-18 00:45:49 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > > I also don’t think that I agree
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 1:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > However, it might. And if it does, I think it would be best if
> > > removing that exception were the *only* change in this area made by
> > > that release.
> >
> > Good idea,
Greetings,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 18:31 Joshua Brindle
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 12:27 PM Joe Conway wrote:
> >
> > On 3/3/22 11:26, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:37 PM Joe Conway wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2/10/22 14:28, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Feb
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 00:45:49 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I also don’t think that I agree that it’s acceptable to only have the
> > > > ability to extend the authentication on the server side as that implies
>
Greetings,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 00:24 Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-03-18 00:03:37 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 23:25 Andres Freund wrote:
> > > It's imo a separate project to make the client side extensible. There's
> > &g
Greetings,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 23:25 Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-03-17 22:13:27 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This isn’t the first time I asked about this on this thread, yet the
> > question about why this is only being discussed as backend changes, and
> > with
Greetings,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 17:02 Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-03-16 18:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > First, let's be clear- we aren't actually talking about custom or
> > pluggable authentication here, at least when it comes to PG as a
> > project
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-03-17 14:03:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2022-03-17 12:10:51 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > Looking at the existing authentication met
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-03-17 12:10:51 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Looking at the existing authentication methods
> >
> > # METHOD can be "trust", "reject", "md5", "password", "scram-sha-256",
> > # "gss", "sspi", "ident", "peer", "pam", "ldap",
Greetings,
* samay sharma (smilingsa...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 8:02 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > How about- if we just added OAUTH support directly into libpq and the
> > backend, would that work with Azure's OIDC provider? If not, why not?
>
> Overall
Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-03-16 at 11:02 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > That we're having to extend this quite a bit to work for the proposed
> > OAUTH patches and that it still doesn't do anything for the client
> > side
> >
Greetings,
* samay sharma (smilingsa...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:15 AM Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 11:12 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > At the moment, it is not possible to judge whether the hook interface
> > > you have chosen is appropriate.
> > >
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:21 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >
> > > > As this patch is c
Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 15:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The standard is basically that all of the functions it brings are
> > written to enforce the PG privilege system and you aren't able to use
> > the extension to by
Greetings,
* Mark Dilger (mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2022, at 4:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > First … I outlined a fair bit of further description in the message you
> > just responded to but neglected to include in your response, which stri
Greetings,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 19:03 Mark Dilger
wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > I do think that’s reasonable … and believe I suggested it about 3
> messages ago in this thread. ;) (step #3 I think it was? Or maybe 4).
>
Greetings,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 18:55 Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 20:28 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Will add to the CF for consideration.
>
> GSSAPI newbie here, so caveat lector.
No worries, thanks for your interest!
> diff --git a/src/backend/
Greetings,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:32 Mark Dilger
wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 2022, at 8:48 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it would have an impact on backwards compatibility to
> > change how WITH ADMIN works- but it would also get us more in line
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:12 AM Mark Dilger
> wrote:
> > This issue of how much backwards compatibility breakage we're willing to
> > tolerate is just as important as questions about how we would want roles to
> > work in a green-field
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > If we implement the link between the creating role and the created
> > role as role ownership, then we are surely just going to add a
> > rolowner column to pg_authid, and when the role is owned by nobody, I
> > think we
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:01 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:00 PM David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> > > I dislike changing the documented behavior of CREATEROLE to the degree
> > suggested here. However,
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 5:14 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > This seems reasonable in isolation, but
> >
> > (1) it implies a persistent relationship between creating and created
> > roles. Whether you want to call that ownership or not, it sure
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:22 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > * Can we mark this extension 'trusted'? I'm not 100% clear on the
> > standards for that marker, but it seems reasonable for a database owner
> > with the right privileges might want
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 2:58 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It'd be useful to have a better definition of exactly what a
> > 'mini-superuser' is, but at least for the moment when it comes to roles,
> > let's look
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> But that's not to say that we couldn't decide to do something else
> instead, and that other thing might well be better. Do you want to
> sketch out a full proposal, even just what the syntax would look like,
> and share that here? And if
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:05 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Da
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:46 AM Robert Haas
> > wrote:
> > > > On
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 7:46 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:31 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I don't think we need syntax to describe it. As I just said in my
> > > other reply, we have a perfectly good
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > In my opinion, the right to
> > > administer a role - regardless of whether or not it is a login role -
> > > most naturally vests in the role that created it, or something in that
> >
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mar 7, 2022, at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > tgl> Having said that, one thing that I find fishy is that it's not clear
> > tgl> where the admin privilege for a role originates. After "CREATE ROLE
> > tgl> alice",
Greetings,
* Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote:
> On 03/09/22 12:19, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Let's avoid hijacking [thread about other patch] [1]
> > for an independent debate about what our documentation should or
> > shouldn't include.
>
> Agree
Greetings,
* Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote:
> On 03/09/22 11:22, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> It's more than just too confusing, it's actively bad because people will
> >> actually use it and then end up with backups that don't work.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Or even worse, backups that
Greetings,
* Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote:
> On 03/08/22 17:12, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > I spent some time trying to come up with a workable script to replace the
> > existing one. I think the main problem is that you need to write out both
> > the backup label file and the
Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-03-02 at 10:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It's our decision what we want to support and maintain in the code
> > base
> > and what we don't.
>
> That might be an argument in favor of custom auth
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I'm not quite following this bit. Where would SET ROLE come into play
> > when we're talking about old dump scripts and how the commands in those
> > scripts might be interpreted by
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Agreed, this is not something to move on quickly. We might want
> >> to think about adjusting pg_dump to use explicit GRANTED BY
> >&g
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was thinking the former ... however, after a bit of experimentation
> > I see that we accept "grant foo to bar granted by baz" a VERY long
> > way back, but the "granted by" option for
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > 1. What should be the exact rule for whether A can remove a grant made
> > by B? Is it has_privs_of_role()? is_member_of_role()? Something else?
>
> No strong opinion here, but I'd lean slightly to the more restrictive
Greetings,
* Pavel Borisov (pashkin.e...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> >> The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
> >>> rules for people in that way I'm afraid.
> >>>
> >> Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's
Greetings,
* Aleksander Alekseev (aleksan...@timescale.com) wrote:
> My last email to pgsql-jobs@ was moderated in a similar fashion. To my
> knowledge that mailing list is not pre-moderated. So it may have the same
> problem, and not only with patches. (We use regular Google Workspace.)
-jobs
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 02.03.22 21:49, samay sharma wrote:
> >I think we are discussing two topics in this thread which in my opinion
> >are orthogonal.
> >
> >(a) Should we make authentication methods pluggable by exposing these
> >hooks? -
Greetings,
* Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
> > Yes, really, it's a known-broken system which suffers from such an old
> > and well known attack that it's been given a name: pass-the-hash. As
> > was discussed on this thread even, just the fact that it's not trivial
> > to break on the
Greetings,
* Tatsuo Ishii (is...@sraoss.co.jp) wrote:
> > On 2/25/22 12:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Jeff Davis writes:
> >>> On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 20:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... and, since we can't readily enforce that the client only sends
> those cleartext passwords over
Greetings,
* Pavel Borisov (pashkin.e...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > BTW messages with patches in this thread are always invoke manual spam
> > moderation and we need to wait for ~3 hours before the message with patch
> > becomes visible in the hackers thread. Now when I've already answered
> >
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-03-02 09:32:26 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 01.03.22 22:34, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > The cases I've heard about are about centralizing auth across multiple
> > > cloud
> > > services. Including secret management in some
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:54:27AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It's our decision what we want to support and maintain in the code base
> > and what we don't. Folks often ask for things that we don't or won't
> > s
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > We don't require SSL to be used with them..? Further, as already
> > discussed on this thread, SSL only helps with on-the-wire, doesn't
> > address the
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 02.03.22 15:16, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> >>I find that a lot of people are still purposely using md5. Removing it
> >>now or in a year would be quite a disruption.
> >
> >What are the reasons they are still purposely
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:09:31AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm not sure that it's quite so simple. Perhaps we should also drop
> > LDAP and I don't really think PAM was ever terribly good for us to have,
>
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> >> What is the logic to removing md5 but keeping 'password'?
>
> > I don't think we should keep 'password'.
>
> I don't see much point
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 08:31:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > The last time I played with this area is the recent error handling
> > > improvement with cryptohashes but MD5 has actually helped here in
> &
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 01.03.22 22:34, Andres Freund wrote:
> >The cases I've heard about are about centralizing auth across multiple cloud
> >services. Including secret management in some form. E.g. allowing an
> >application to auth to
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2022-02-28 11:26:06 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > We already have a variety of authentication mechanisms that support central
> > management: LDAP, PAM, Kerberos, Radius.
>
> LDAP, PAM and Radius all require cleartext passwords, so
Greetings,
* Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote:
> On 03/01/22 14:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> There can't really be many teams out there thinking "we'll just ignore
> >> these scripts forever, and nothing bad will happen." They all know they'll
Greetings,
* Chapman Flack (c...@anastigmatix.net) wrote:
> On 03/01/22 13:22, David Steele wrote:
> > I think people are going to complain no matter what. If scripts are being
> > maintained changing the name is not a big deal (though moving from exclusive
> > to non-exclusive may be). If they
Greetings,
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 3/1/22 11:32, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:09:13AM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> >>On 03/01/22 09:44, David Steele wrote:
> >>>Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename
> >>>functions/tables/views
Greetings,
* Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 08:44:51AM -0600, David Steele wrote:
> > Personally, I am in favor of removing it. We change/rename
> > functions/tables/views when we need to, and this happens in almost every
> > release.
> >
> > What we
201 - 300 of 1906 matches
Mail list logo
