Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Kaare Rasmussen
Schema handling - ready? interfaces? client apps? status for JDBC or ODBC; any comments? The other interface libraries probably don't care. What about DBD::Pg? -- Kaare Rasmussen--Linux, spil,--Tlf:3816 2582 Kaki Datatshirts, merchandize

Re: [HACKERS] Outer join differences

2002-07-31 Thread Mario Weilguni
Here are the details. Those probably aren't the same outer join queries. I think you're right, these aren't the same, see below: When I run the query select yt1_name, yt1_descr, yt2_name, yt2_descr from yuva_test1 left outer join yuva_test2 on yt1_id=yt2_id and yt2_name = '2-name2'

Re: [HACKERS] Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On 31 Jul 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote: An it is often easier to map OO languages to OOR database when you dont have to change your mindset when going through the interface. But you have to anyway! Adding this inheritance does not remove the relational model; it's still there right in front of

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... I agree that if we could quickly come to a resolution about how this ought to work, there's plenty of time to go off and implement it. But (1) we failed to come to a consensus before, so I'm not optimistic than one will suddenly emerge now; (2) we've got a ton of other issues that we

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: The no envar camp has not thought through the issues yet, though the issues can be found in the threads. Better to decide what the requirements are before throwing out the solution. Ok, so what issues has the no envvar camp not yet dealt with?

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 10:22, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. How about ERROR: Cannot insert into a view You need an unconditional ON INSERT DO INSTEAD rule Seems more accurate, but actually you may also have two or more conditional rules that cover all

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... But ... my recollection is that we've had a *huge* number of complaints about the initlocation behavior, at least by comparison to the number of people using the feature. No one can understand how it works, let alone how to configure it so that it works reliably. I really fail to

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Stats Collector

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It all works now and I have just submitted it to -patches as a new contrib, but it probably should make its way into the backend one day. OK, the big question is how do we want to make stats reset visible to users? The current patch uses a

Re: [HACKERS] Virus Emails

2002-07-31 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: I would also like to know this! They don't mention it anywhere on their site! The FreeBSD command line version comes on the CD along with the windoze versions. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:00:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: let alone how to configure it so that it works reliably. I really fail to understand why you want to drive this new feature off environment variables. You say you've pointed out the utility and desirability of doing it that way, but

[HACKERS] Query parser?

2002-07-31 Thread Teodor Sigaev
wow=# update \d dmoz Table dmoz Column | Type | Modifiers +-+--- id | integer | name | text| path | ltree | Indexes: dmoz_id_idx unique btree (id), dmoz_path_idx gist (path) wow-# wow-# ; ERROR: parser: parse error at or near

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
Le Mercredi 31 Juillet 2002 05:50, Bruce Momjian a écrit : Source Code Changes What about CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW which would be great for pgAdmin2. Thanks to all of you./Jean-Michel POURE ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... Is this a fair account? Yes. You may note that we have not explored the implementation details on any of these, so the attributes of each are not cast in stone (except for the purposes of argument of course ;) - Thomas ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a.The system uses no environment variables at all; some other method is used to determine where the config file is (maybe compiled into the code); If I understand it, nobody is really arguing for (a). I am. I see absolutely no advantage in

Re: [HACKERS] Query parser?

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Teodor Sigaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: wow=# update \d dmoz Table dmoz Column | Type | Modifiers +-+--- id | integer | name | text| path | ltree | Indexes: dmoz_id_idx unique btree (id), dmoz_path_idx gist (path)

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:23:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a. The system uses no environment variables at all; some other method is used to determine where the config file is (maybe compiled into the code); If I understand it, nobody is really

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Seems more accurate, but actually you may also have two or more conditional rules that cover all possibilities if taken together. Maybe ERROR: Cannot insert into a view You need an ON INSERT DO INSTEAD rule that matches your INSERT Which covers both cases. Actually not:

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since I see a huge benefit in allowing conditional rules for a view, I think it is worth finding a solution. We do allow conditional rules for a view. You just have to write an unconditional one too (which can be merely DO INSTEAD NOTHING).

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote: * libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should be integrated or reversed out before beta. I've requestsed that Jeorgen(sp?) move this over to GBorg ... its

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes: Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx... Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still have to discuss this, and if someone's already

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, how then would one set the location of the config file? The config file itself has to be found the same way we do it now, obviously: either a command line argument or the environment variable $PGDATA. But that's a red herring. This thread is not

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:09:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, how then would one set the location of the config file? The config file itself has to be found the same way we do it now, obviously: either a command line argument or the environment

[HACKERS] many idle processes

2002-07-31 Thread John Liu
I tried to understand what causes too many pgsql idle processes. Can postmaster automatically aged and cleaning up those unused idle process? Is there a catalog to track those psql processes - what their functions, who issues, etc.? thanks. johnl ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: NAMEDATALEN - disk/performance penalty for increase, 64, 128? In my personal testing, I've been unable to observe a significant performance impact (as Tom mentioned, I tried getting some profiling data with gprof + pgbench, and

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:01:43AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: add in 'fix pg_hba.conf / password issues' to that too :) I doubt that will make 7.3 -- the proposals I've seen on this topic require some reasonably complex additions to the authentication system. We also still need to hash out

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes: FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32? Until someone takes the time to determine what the performance implications of this change will be, I don't think we should change this. Given that no one has done any testing, I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
Since I see a huge benefit in allowing conditional rules for a view, I think it is worth finding a solution. We do allow conditional rules for a view. You just have to write an unconditional one too (which can be merely DO INSTEAD NOTHING). Hmm, but you cannot then trow an error, but

Re: [HACKERS] many idle processes

2002-07-31 Thread Doug McNaught
John Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I tried to understand what causes too many pgsql idle processes. Can postmaster automatically aged and cleaning up those unused idle process? Those processes are attached to open client connections. If you don't like them, change your client to close

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote: One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of people trying to build it. If it's a separate

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Brett Schwarz
I too do not like alot of bloat in the distribution, but I also agree with what Andrew is saying. Currently, at the FTP site, you can download the whole tar file, or in 4 separate tarballs. How hard would it be to create a separate tarball for client related packages? I am not sure if this would

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Jeff MacDonald
Besides, more generally, Postgres already has a reputation as being difficult to install. The proposal to separate out all the non-basics (I'm not even sure how one would draw that line: maybe a server-only package and a client-library package run through GBorg?) would mean that anyone

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote: One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:36:43PM -0300, Jeff MacDonald wrote: When you install freebsd or linux, is it a problem that all the perl modules you need have to fetched from cpan ? why can't they call just be part of the OS ?' Well, not just part of the OS, but part of Perl. And after all,

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:11:40PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple 'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ... Sorry, I think I

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Iavor Raytchev
Andrew Sullivan wrote: Sorry, I think I wasn't making myself clear. I think that's a splendid idea. But I'm not sure it's worth paying for it by making users who want the whole thing download multiple packages. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that, however, and it's not like I feel terribly

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Jeff MacDonald
How many thousands of web sites out there don't offer PgSQL due to teh hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple 'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ... Case in point, I

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote: * libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should be integrated or reversed out before beta. I've requestsed that

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes: Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx... Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still have to

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:01:43AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: add in 'fix pg_hba.conf / password issues' to that too :) I doubt that will make 7.3 -- the proposals I've seen on this topic require some reasonably complex additions to the

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: Thomas, are you going to extend this to locations for any table/index? Seems whatever we do for WAL should fix in that scheme. The trick is that it might not. For relations you simply need a system table mapping location names to file system locations, and you can add

[HACKERS] Please, apply ltree patch

2002-07-31 Thread Oleg Bartunov
Bruce, please find attached patch to current CVS ( contrib/ltree ) Changes: July 31, 2002 Now works on 64-bit platforms. Added function lca - lowest common ancestor Version for 7.2 is distributed as separate package -

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Socket permissions - only install user can access db by default I do not agree with this goal. OK, this is TODO item: * Make single-user local access permissions the default by limiting permissions on the socket file (Peter E) Right now, we effectively install initdb as

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: NAMEDATALEN - disk/performance penalty for increase, 64, 128? FUNC_MAX_ARGS - disk/performance penalty for increase, 24, 32? At the moment I don't see a lot of solid evidence that increasing NAMEDATALEN has any performance penalty. Someone reported about a 10% slowdown

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Iavor Raytchev
psql is very definitely not ready, nor is pgaccess. I could not really trace who said this. To my understanding nobody is currently testing how pgaccess is dealing with 7.3 Am I wrong? Most problems we try to address now are related to pgaccess working on most platforms (Brett fights with

Re: [HACKERS] No bison and NAMEDATALEN 31: initdb failure?

2002-07-31 Thread Ian Barwick
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 00:23, Tom Lane wrote: Ian Barwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Does src/include/postgres_ext.h count as a parser definition file? No, it doesn't. Your experience sounds like you may have neglected to do a full rebuild after altering NAMEDATALEN. (By default, we

[HACKERS] IO error - please help

2002-07-31 Thread Yuva Chandolu
Hi, We had seen the following exception when we tried for a heavy query(around 1 to 2 in result is possible) An I/O error occured while reading from backend - Exception: java.net.SocketException: socket closed: Bad file number Stack Trace: java.net.SocketException: socket closed: Bad

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, we need someone to benchmark both the NAMEDATALEN and FUNC_MAX_ARGS to prove we are not causing performance problems. Once that is done, the default limits can be easily increased. I was thinking 64 for NAMEDATALEN and 32 for FUNC_MAX_ARGS,

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:30:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, we need someone to benchmark both the NAMEDATALEN and FUNC_MAX_ARGS to prove we are not causing performance problems. Once that is done, the default limits can be easily increased. I was thinking 64 for NAMEDATALEN and 32

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Socket permissions - only install user can access db by default I do not agree with this goal. OK, this is TODO item: * Make single-user local access permissions the default by limiting permissions on the socket file (Peter E)

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Rod Taylor
Another idea is to change pg_hba.conf to not default to 'trust' but then the installing user is going to have to choose a password. I like this approach. Set it to password (or md5) on local, and force the request of a password during initdb. If for some reason they forget their password,

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Another idea is to change pg_hba.conf to not default to 'trust' but then the installing user is going to have to choose a password. Well, initdb already has an option to request a password. It would perhaps make sense for initdb to alter the installed pg_hba.conf file to select local md5 mode

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Point-in-time recovery - ready for 7.3? At the moment, it doesn't exist at all. If patches appear, we can review 'em, but right now there is nothing to debate. Yes, I listed it just to keep it on the radar. Win32 - timefame? I've seen nothing to make me think this

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
If you can contribute it, I think it would be valuable to the two other Win32 projects that are working on porting the 7.3 code to Win32. I don't think they will have any code ready for 7.3 but they may have a few pieces they want to get in to make their 7.3 patching job easier, like renaming

[HACKERS] Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives / arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ... Basically, CVS let's

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:30:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Yes, we need someone to benchmark both the NAMEDATALEN and FUNC_MAX_ARGS to prove we are not causing performance problems. Once that is done, the default limits can be easily increased. I was thinking 64

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Dependency - pg_dump auto-create dependencies for 7.2.X data? Huh? Taking a bunch of CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGERS and turning them into the proper pg_constraint entries... Description updated: Dependency - have pg_dump auto-create dependencies

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: NAMEDATALEN - disk/performance penalty for increase, 64, 128? In my personal testing, I've been unable to observe a significant performance impact (as Tom mentioned, I tried getting some profiling data with

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:01:43AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: add in 'fix pg_hba.conf / password issues' to that too :) I doubt that will make 7.3 -- the proposals I've seen on this topic require some reasonably

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to open items list: handle lack of secondary passwords --- Marc G. Fournier wrote: add in 'fix pg_hba.conf / password issues' to that too :) On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Here are the

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Ok, how then would one set the location of the config file? Option on the command line. Works for lots of different servers out there already (BIND, apache, etc.). Whether we also want to emulate them using a compiled-in default if the command line

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Socket permissions - only install user can access db by default I do not agree with this goal. OK, this is TODO item: * Make single-user local access permissions the default by limiting permissions on

[HACKERS] Trimming the Fat: Getting code via CVSup ...

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
I've just updated the README.cvsup file in order to reflect the changes, to provide a sample of how to download the whole thing, as well as instructions on how to do just a particular module: [ Updated README.cvsup ]= # This file represents the

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Another idea is to change pg_hba.conf to not default to 'trust' but then the installing user is going to have to choose a password. Well, initdb already has an option to request a password. It would perhaps make sense for initdb to alter the installed pg_hba.conf file to

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Ron Snyder
As for 7.3, maybe we can get that done in time of everyone likes it. If we can't, what do we do? Do we re-add the secondary password file stuff that most people don't like? My big question is how many other PostgreSQL users figured out they could use the secondary password file for

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Ron Snyder wrote: As for 7.3, maybe we can get that done in time of everyone likes it. If we can't, what do we do? Do we re-add the secondary password file stuff that most people don't like? My big question is how many other PostgreSQL users figured out they could use the

Re: [HACKERS] Please, apply ltree patch

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours. --- Oleg Bartunov wrote: Bruce, please find

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: Socket permissions - only install user can access db by default I do not agree with this goal. It is my understanding that there is currently a lot of criticism that the default setup is open to all local users. This is nearly the same as having the data area files

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Ron Snyder
OK, how do secondary passwords work in pg_hba.conf. It requires clear-text 'password', right, because the password is already crypt-ed in the file. I presume that you're referring to passwords being transmitted clear text? One idea I had was to look for a colon in the username, and if I

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Ron Snyder wrote: OK, how do secondary passwords work in pg_hba.conf. It requires clear-text 'password', right, because the password is already crypt-ed in the file. I presume that you're referring to passwords being transmitted clear text? Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line?

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over networks you don't trust. Yes, we're using 'password password' in our pg_hba.conf file. I trust my network (so far). That is another major limitation to secondary password files. In fact, md5 will not

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: The utility is Table Partitioning by expression. Basically you have a union view like: create view history as select * from history2000 where yearcol=2000 union all select * from history2001 where yearcol=2001 You want to be careful

Re: Trim the Fat (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items )

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx... The problem I have with removing libpqxx is that libpq++ is a far inferior C++ interface. If we leave libpq++ as the only C++ interface distributed with

Re: [HACKERS] many idle processes

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Is there a catalog to track those psql processes - what their functions, who issues, etc.? thanks. johnl If you have it enabled in your postgresql.conf, just go: select * from pg_stat_activity; Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1:

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, I have thought about this. First, a possible solution would be to have a GUC variable that prepends the dbname to all username specifications, so the username becomes dbname.username. When you CREATE USER test, it actually does CREATE USER

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: One idea I had was to look for a colon in the username, and if I see one, I assume everything after the colon is a password. Would that work for you? That would definitely work ... but I *really* like your GUC idea ... it would allow ppl to change

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over networks you don't trust. Yes, we're using 'password password' in our pg_hba.conf file. I trust my network (so far). That is another major limitation to

Re: [HACKERS] Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives / arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ... Personally, I'd like

Re: [HACKERS] Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives / arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective middle ground ... and

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over networks you don't trust. Yes, we're using 'password password' in our pg_hba.conf file. I trust my network (so far).

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over networks you don't trust. Yes, we're using 'password password' in our

[HACKERS] Another quick question...

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
If you have RelationGetRelationName(rel) to get the name of a relation, how do you get it's fully qualified schema name? Or how do I get the schema name for the relation? Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over networks you don't trust. Yes, we're

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Ron Snyder wrote: Yes, is that your pg_hba.conf line? 'password' is insecure over

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote: But the location of the WAL logs, and the commit logs, if anyone is thinking in that direction, needs to be known to initdb. And if you want to move them later you'd need to halt the entire system I don't see this as a big problem. Right now

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: I am working on it now. I decided against doing any kind of database prepending at the user level. You create the user as 'dbname.username'. That is clearer, rather than prepending based on the db you are connected to. The only code change is in the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] WAL file location

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Curt Sampson wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Ok, how then would one set the location of the config file? Option on the command line. Works for lots of different servers out there already (BIND, apache, etc.). Whether we also want to emulate them using a compiled-in

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: I am working on it now. I decided against doing any kind of database prepending at the user level. You create the user as 'dbname.username'. That is clearer, rather than prepending based on the db you are connected

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Access to nothing. I could actually try to quality by dbname.username, then fall back to just username, but that seems insecure. No, that's cool ... just questions I thought of ... OK. Okay ... hmmm ... just making sure that I understand ... I setup a server,

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:05:35PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, I have thought about this. First, a possible solution would be to have a GUC variable that prepends the dbname to all username specifications, so the username becomes dbname.username. When you CREATE USER test, it actually

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:05:35PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: OK, I have thought about this. First, a possible solution would be to have a GUC variable that prepends the dbname to all username specifications, so the username becomes dbname.username. When you CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: Access to nothing. I could actually try to quality by dbname.username, then fall back to just username, but that seems insecure. No, that's cool ... just questions I thought of ...

Re: [HACKERS] -snapshot?

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
thanks for the heads up, fixed ... part of the generation code was flawed, in that it tried to move a directory that didn't exist, failed and exited the script *roll eyes* added in an 'if' to make sure the directory exists, and am running it manually now ... On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, bpalmer

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Also, what happens if I enable the GUC var, create a bunch of different users/databases, and then disable it again? You swap back and forth between users with prepended dbnames and those withouth. And if I've created the user

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Also, what happens if I enable the GUC var, create a bunch of different users/databases, and then disable it again? You swap back and forth between users with prepended dbnames and those withouth.

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: Access to nothing. I could actually try to quality by dbname.username, then fall back to just username, but that seems insecure. No,

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Okay, final request .. how hard would it be to pre-pend the current database name if GUC value is on? ie. if I'm in db1 and run CREATE USER, it will add db1. to the username if I hadn't already? Sounds to me it would be simple to do, and it would fix the point I

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Curt Sampson
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You want to be careful with this sort of stuff, since the query planner sometimes won't do the view as efficiently as it would do the fully specified equivalant query. I've posted about this here before. Please

Re: [HACKERS] Another quick question...

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you have RelationGetRelationName(rel) to get the name of a relation, how do you get it's fully qualified schema name? Or how do I get the schema name for the relation? Well, you can do get_namespace_name(rel-rd_rel-relnamespace), but I

Re: [HACKERS] Rules and Views

2002-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You want to be careful with this sort of stuff, since the query planner sometimes won't do the view as efficiently as it would do the fully specified equivalant query. I've

Re: [HACKERS] Another quick question...

2002-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you have RelationGetRelationName(rel) to get the name of a relation, how do you get it's fully qualified schema name? Or how do I get the schema name for the relation? Well, you can do get_namespace_name(rel-rd_rel-relnamespace), but

  1   2   >