> On 18 Nov 2021, at 14:42, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 14:41, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 16.11.21 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2021, at 15:04, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
..or should the attached small diff be applied to fix it?
>>>
> On 18 Nov 2021, at 14:41, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 16.11.21 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2021, at 15:04, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> ..or should the attached small diff be applied to fix it?
>> Actually it shouldn't, I realized when hitting Send that it was the
On 16.11.21 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2021, at 15:04, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
..or should the attached small diff be applied to fix it?
Actually it shouldn't, I realized when hitting Send that it was the wrong
version. The attached is the proposed diff.
This appears to
> On 16 Nov 2021, at 15:04, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> ..or should the attached small diff be applied to fix it?
Actually it shouldn't, I realized when hitting Send that it was the wrong
version. The attached is the proposed diff.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
> On 30 Jan 2021, at 09:51, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-12-30 13:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:40, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-24 20:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter
On 2020-12-30 13:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:40, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 2020-06-24 20:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:40, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-24 20:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
> >> On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
> >>> support GRANT role
On 2020-06-24 20:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
CURRENT_ROLE in that
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> committed
A couple of buildfarm animals are reporting instability in the
modified rolenames test, eg
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hoverfly=2020-09-17%2010%3A27%3A36
On 2020-09-11 22:05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Aug-26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Here is another patch that also makes comprehensive updates to the rolenames
tests under src/test/modules/unsafe_tests/.
Looks good to me. You need to DROP ROLE "current_role" at the bottom of
rolenames.sql,
On 2020-Aug-26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is another patch that also makes comprehensive updates to the rolenames
> tests under src/test/modules/unsafe_tests/.
Looks good to me. You need to DROP ROLE "current_role" at the bottom of
rolenames.sql, though (as well as DROP OWNED BY, I
On 2020-09-07 12:02, Asif Rehman wrote:
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
The patch applies
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:tested, passed
The patch applies cleanly and looks fine to me. However
On 2020-06-24 23:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are
On 2020-Jun-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
> support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
> CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are equivalent.
> Here is a trivial patch to add
On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are
On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
> support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
> CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are
> equivalent. Here is a trivial patch to add
://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From f46554c2bba025b62b796748d3aa3a65fd080f7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:21:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Allow CURRENT_ROLE in GRANTED BY
This is speci
18 matches
Mail list logo
