[HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread GB Clark II
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: If we have to do it, let's make it an #ifdef __linux__ option. What does Linux have to do with it? FreeBSD does the same thing, only every three days. I dont' know whether it's not enabled on a fresh install, but it's there,

Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
Jan Wieck wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Jan Wieck writes: Exactly the way you want it to do (open(2) and close(2) of a UNIX domain socket) was what I had to do to get an old Mach3-4.3BSD combo into a kernel-panic. The lock file is an ordinary file.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -c database problem

2001-01-27 Thread Philip Warner
At 14:56 24/01/01 -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: pg_dump -c database The \connect is after the DROP TABLE statements where I believe it should come first. (Gotta connect as the right user before dropping everything). This is now fixed.

Re: [HACKERS] RPM: Contrib request.

2001-01-27 Thread Lamar Owen
Tom Lane wrote: Meanwhile, it's not the RPMs' place to editorialize on which contrib items are useful. Package 'em all, unless we hit build problems. Interesting point of view :-). Going into 'Uncle Martin' mode (obscure joke alert...). -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11

[HACKERS] Ungraceful handling of fatal flex errors

2001-01-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
A fatal scanner error (likely a memory exhaustion problem) causes a straight exit() without clean up, which causes a system-wide restart. This should fix it: *** scan.l 2001/01/24 19:43:03 1.85 --- scan.l 2001/01/27 14:14:29 *** *** 55,60 --- 55,62 /* No

Re: [HACKERS] Which version?

2001-01-27 Thread Vince Vielhaber
This happened on SuSE 7.0, compiling with gcc 2.95. Maybe I downloaded some stale corrupted tarball with a file missing - I went to .http://www.pgsql.com/download/ and just clicked on the top "Download" button. Where is F_OIDEQ supposed to be defined anyway? here:

[HACKERS] plan for running postmaster directly as NT service

2001-01-27 Thread Fred Yankowski
I'm using PostgreSQL on WinNT to support (along with Zope) several websites. I've currently got postmaster running as an NT service by wrapping it with the 'invoker' utility, but I'd prefer to have it run directly as a service so that it can be stopped cleanly. I now know the basics of how to

RE: [HACKERS] plan for running postmaster directly as NT service

2001-01-27 Thread Magnus Hagander
d) How can we insure that the ipc-daemon service starts before the postgres/postmaster service? I believe that NT has some facility that allows one service to request start-up of another service, but I have no idea how to make that happen. You can use Service Dependencies for this. In you

Re: [HACKERS] plan for running postmaster directly as NT service

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
Fred Yankowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a) The 'install' and 'remove' code is quite bulky, although simple. Is it OK to create a new source file for it, rather than working it into some existing file? I think this'd be a lot easier to sell (and probably to implement) if the NT-specific stuff

Re: [HACKERS] Ungraceful handling of fatal flex errors

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A fatal scanner error (likely a memory exhaustion problem) causes a straight exit() without clean up, which causes a system-wide restart. This should fix it: *** scan.l 2001/01/24 19:43:03 1.85 --- scan.l 2001/01/27 14:14:29

Re: [HACKERS] Which version?

2001-01-27 Thread Sasha Pachev
On Friday 26 January 2001 19:04, The Hermit Hacker wrote: Need more information ... specifically what OS are you running? I *just* built PgSQL 7.0.3 on my freshly installed FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE box, and it compiled cleanly ... This happened on SuSE 7.0, compiling with gcc 2.95. Maybe I

[HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Florent Guillaume
/tmp is for *temporary* files. Such a lock is not a temporary file, it should go somewhere in /var, why not in /var/lib/pgsql/data ? The 'tmpwatch' program on Red Hat will remove the /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432.lock file after the server has run 6 days. This will be a problem. We could touch

Re: [HACKERS] Which version?

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
My guess is that there is some old/other include that is interfering with our includes. This it the first OID_EQ compile error I can remember seeing. This happened on SuSE 7.0, compiling with gcc 2.95. Maybe I downloaded some stale corrupted tarball with a file missing - I went to

Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Jan Wieck writes: Exactly the way you want it to do (open(2) and close(2) of a UNIX domain socket) was what I had to do to get an old Mach3-4.3BSD combo into a kernel-panic. The lock file is an

Re: [HACKERS] PgAccess - small bug?

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Applied to CVS. Thanks. Bruce Momjian wrote: Constantin Teodorescu wrote: I'll fix it this weekend! OK, let me know if you release a new pgaccess and I will add it to CVS. Bug fixed. Ross patches applied. HTML documentation updated with what's new. Hope it's fine!

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Vadim Mikheev
Here are the open items for 7.1. Much shorter: + Runtime btree recovery Vadim

Re: [HACKERS] PgAccess - small bug?

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
This is fixed in the pgaccess version in CVS. On Wed, 31 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: I assume this is fixed? Oh, it is really old letter from me. I total forget... Hmm, I haven't here last version of CVS, but pgaccess in my comp has this bug still.. Bruce, thanks

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Lamar Owen
Florent Guillaume wrote: /tmp is for *temporary* files. Such a lock is not a temporary file, it should go somewhere in /var, why not in /var/lib/pgsql/data ? /var/lib is also not for locks, per FHS. /var/lock/pgsql (or /var/lock/postgresql) would be the FHS-mandated place for such a

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread The Hermit Hacker
first off, the lock file is put in by an unprivileged user, so /tmp works on all systems ... second, /tmp on a large portion of systems gets cleaned out after a reboot, so there are no 'stray locks' to generally worry about... On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] new version of contrib-intarray

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: btw, is there way to specify default ops for index ? Sure, that's what pg_opclass is for. Just insert the opclass name and the OID of the type you want it to be the default index opclass for. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Lamar Owen
The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: Comments? _Why_ is the lock in /tmp? Won't the lock always be put into place by the uid used to run postmaster? Is a _world_ writeable temporary directory the right place? first off, the lock file is put in by an

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Lamar Owen writes: I understand why the socket needs to be in /tmp, but why the lockfile? The lock file protects the Unix domain socket. Consequently, the name of the lock file needs to be derivable from the name of the socket file, and vice versa. Also, the name of the socket file must not

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Lamar Owen
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Lamar Owen writes: I understand why the socket needs to be in /tmp, but why the lockfile? The lock file protects the Unix domain socket. Consequently, the name of the lock file needs to be derivable from the name of the socket file, and vice versa. Also, the name

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
I understand why the socket needs to be in /tmp, but why the lockfile? It would probably be better if the socket files weren't in /tmp but in a postgres-owned directory. However, at this point we have a huge backwards compatibility problem to overcome if we want to move the socket files. The

RE: [HACKERS] Bug in FOREIGN KEY

2001-01-27 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] However I'm suspicious if KEY_CHANGED check is necessary. Removing KEY_CHANGED stuff seems to solve the TODO FOREIGN KEY INSERT UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation" though it may introduce other bugs.

[HACKERS] Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Florent Guillaume
It would probably be better if the socket files weren't in /tmp but in a postgres-owned directory. However, at this point we have a huge backwards compatibility problem to overcome if we want to move the socket files. The location of the socket files is essentially a core part of the

Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
Bruce Momjian wrote: Note: programs that run as non-root users may be unable to create files un der /var/run and therefore need a subdirectory owned by the appropriate user. This is the killer. We can't require root. Seems we are stuck with /tmp. I'd be surprised to learn

Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, the lock file is gone

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
"Oliver Elphick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: /var/run/postgresql There's another reason why the standard socket directory is /tmp, and that's that it exists everywhere. Not all Unix systems even *have* a /var hierarchy, let alone one that the admin will let you have a playpen in.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] MySQL - Postgres dump converter

2001-01-27 Thread Hannu Krosing
Max Rudensky wrote: Guys, Thomas said he won't look into GPL'ed code for ideas. Well, I re-read GPL and found that it's up to author whether is to allow or not to use code for using in programs with another open-source license. So this isn't a problem - you may use my program and include

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Philip Warner
At 07:24 26/01/01 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables Ok. I have made patches for fixing some of pg_dump problems(see attached patches). ... Also I'm not quite sure "#arg" (stringification) is portable enough in all platforms.) The patch looks fine to me, but I

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Tom Lane
Philip Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also I'm not quite sure "#arg" (stringification) is portable enough in all platforms.) The patch looks fine to me, but I have no idea how portable #arg is Use the CppAsString macro from our c.h ... that's what it's for. It's actually fairly unlikely

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Philip Warner
At 07:24 26/01/01 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables Ok. I have made patches for fixing some of pg_dump problems(see attached patches). The patches address the problem with user defined functions, operators and aggregates. These have now been applied with minor

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
I assume this addresses the open item: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables I will remove it from the list. Thanks. At 07:24 26/01/01 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables Ok. I have made patches for fixing some of pg_dump problems(see attached

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
At 23:14 27/01/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: I assume this addresses the open item: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables I will remove it from the list. Thanks. I'd remove it from the 'Required for 7.1' list, but leave it on the TODO list, since the task is not quite

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.1 items

2001-01-27 Thread Philip Warner
At 23:14 27/01/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: I assume this addresses the open item: Fix for pg_dump of bad system tables I will remove it from the list. Thanks. I'd remove it from the 'Required for 7.1' list, but leave it on the TODO list, since the task is not quite complete. At

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] MySQL - Postgres dump converter

2001-01-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
Hannu Krosing wrote: If it's all your code, then you are free to license it under any licence you desire. ... What you probably can't do is to revoke the GPL license. You can't revoke it from existing copies "out there", but you can from any copies you release from now on, even of the