On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> Ok so at present I see three distinct issues here, where maybe three
> different patches over time might be needed.
>
> The issues are:
>
> 1. create extension pgcrypto with schema pg_temp; fails because there is
> no schema
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:33 AM Chris Travers
wrote:
>
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
To re-iterate, my experience with PostgreSQL is that people doing
particularly exotic work in PostgreSQL can expect to hit equally exotic
bugs. I have a list that I will not bore people with here.
I think there is a
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:47:54PM +, Chris Travers wrote:
> > I tried installing a test extension into a temp schema. I found
> > this was remarkably difficult to do because pg_temp did not work (I
> > had to create a temporary table
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:47:54PM +, Chris Travers wrote:
> I tried installing a test extension into a temp schema. I found
> this was remarkably difficult to do because pg_temp did not work (I
> had to create a temporary table and then locate the actual table it
> was created in). While
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
I ran make checkworld and everything passed.
I tried installing
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:52:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're suggesting that we disable that security restriction
>> during extension creation, I really can't see how that'd be a
>> good thing ...
> No, I don't mean that. I was just wondering if someone can
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:52:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If you're suggesting that we disable that security restriction
> during extension creation, I really can't see how that'd be a
> good thing ...
No, I don't mean that. I was just wondering if someone can set
search_path within the SQL
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
>> for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command
>> explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an
>> ancient
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
> for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command
> explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an
> ancient security decision, which we're
Sergei Kornilov writes:
>> test=> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw WITH SCHEMA pg_temp_3;
>> ERROR: function file_fdw_handler() does not exist
> This behavior seems as not related to extensions infrastructure:
Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
for function or operator
Hi
> I found that this strange error appears after making
> temporary tables.
>
> test=> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE temp (id int);
> CREATE TABLE
> test=> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw WITH SCHEMA pg_temp_3;
> ERROR: function file_fdw_handler() does not exist
>
> I would try to understand this problem
Dear Michael, Chris and Tom,
> Adding special cases to extensions strikes me as adding more
> funny corners to the behavior of the db in this regard.
I understand your arguments and its utility.
> For most of extensions, this can randomly finish with strange error
> messages, say that:
> =#
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
>> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
>> acceptable.
> Because there are cases where they actually work.
More to the point, it doesn't seem that hard to think of cases
where
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 08:02:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'd vote for accepting the extension creation in temporary schemas and
> fixing \dx and \dx+.
Thanks.
> However the error raised by creating extensions
> in temporary schema still looks strange to me. Since we don't search
>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
> you drop initial proposal more detail?
> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
> acceptable.
Because there are cases where they actually
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:57 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:08:50PM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> > If the point is visibility in \dx it seems to me we want to fix the \dx
> > query.
>
> Yes, I got to think a bit more about that case, and there are cases
> where this
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:40 AM Kuroda, Hayato
wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
> you drop initial proposal more detail?
> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are acceptable.
>
Here's my objection.
Everything a
Dear Michael,
I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
you drop initial proposal more detail?
I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are acceptable.
> Anything depending on a temporary object will be dropped per
> dependency links once the session is
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:08:50PM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> If the point is visibility in \dx it seems to me we want to fix the \dx
> query.
Yes, I got to think a bit more about that case, and there are cases
where this actually works properly as this depends on the objects
defined in the
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 12:48 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 08:34:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Then the extension is showing up as beginning to be present for other
> > users. I am mainly wondering if this case has actually been thought
> > about in the past or
This could probably use a quick note in the docs.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 08:34:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Then the extension is showing up as beginning to be present for other
> users. I am mainly wondering if this case has actually been thought
> about in the past or discussed, and what to do about that and if we
> need to do
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:22:01PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 10:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This combination makes no actual sense, so wouldn't it be better to
>> restrict the case?
>
> Hmm. What exactly doesn't make sense about it?
In my mind, extensions are
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 10:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> This combination makes no actual sense, so wouldn't it be better to
> restrict the case?
Hmm. What exactly doesn't make sense about it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
24 matches
Mail list logo
