Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. How do we get the patches in there, or are they there already?
We patch ;-). I've been working on it the past few days. Not quite
done, but close.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Agreed. How do we get the patches in there, or are they there already?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X?
>
> There's the order-of-oper
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about:
> EXPLICIT_JOIN_MINIMUM
> and
> FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT
I've implemented this using FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT and JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMIT
as the variable names. It'd be easy enough to change if someone comes
up with better names. You can read updated docume
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X?
There's the order-of-operations-in-checkpoint problem, and there's
one variant of the "no one parent tuple was found" problem that
should have been patched in 7.2.3, but was overlooked.
Also, the bog
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 00:01:04 -0500,
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They work the same as table constraints with in-line declaration (no
> comma).
OK. But the documentation implies there is a comma, so it should probably
get chenged then.
This is from the create domain documentation
They work the same as table constraints with in-line declaration (no
comma).
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 00:09, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I am trying to create a domain with more than one check constraint and
> I am getting an error that I don't think is correct according to the
> documentation. I am not
I am trying to create a domain with more than one check constraint and
I am getting an error that I don't think is correct according to the
documentation. I am not sure if this is a limitation of a partially
implemented feature or a bug that has so far been overlooked.
For example:
area=# create d
mlw wrote:
Sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding. What were you looking for?
Sorry Mark, I just thought you were busy.
Was wondering if you were going to make a project of it somewhere, so we
can get things together and have a really decent release for Windows
when 7.4 comes out. :)
I
Sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding. What were you looking for?
I used inno setup as well. If you want I can send my install script.
I thought I was being very forth coming.
I even help out on the Windows PG console window.
Justin Clift wrote:
Hi everyone,
Mark (mlw) put together a
Hi everyone,
Mark (mlw) put together a PostgreSQL installer for Windows (cygwin
version) a little while ago, but he hasn't been responding to requests
for feedback regarding it (probably busy).
As we're going to be releasing a native Windows version of PostgreSQL
7.4 in a few months, it seems
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't see a strong reason not
> > to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already
> > requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full
> > shell environment.
>
> Indeed. I think the
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
> > > > already have ten open doors in a house, does it help
On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
> > > already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of
> > > them wh
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Daniel Kalchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>If ever this happens, same should be considered for tables created via the
> >>SELECT INTO statement. These are in many cases 'temporary' in nature and do
> >>not need OIDs (while making much use
Robert Treat wrote:
> I'm not sure how adequately these topics are covered elsewhere, but you
> should probably provide at least a pointer if not improved information:
>
> * Should have a mention of the pgcrypto code in contrib.
>
> * Brain hiccup, but isn't there some type of "password" datatype
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
> > already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them
> > when the other eight are still open?
>
> Yes. It depends upon whic
On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we
> already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them
> when the other eight are still open?
Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See
Looks like you got them all. I assume you got those from gram.y.
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this the complete list of constants that must not be quoted?
>
> CURRENT_TIME
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> CURRENT_
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:19:03PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > pretty wide feature set (as good as any other open source rdbms afaik)
> > plus it's open source, so if we don't have a feature that say oracle has,
> > you can pay someone the $10,000+ the oracle license will
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 22:47, Justin Clift wrote:
> > Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that
> > address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has
> > developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been
> > widely
OK, at your suggestion, IPv6 addresses will appear in pg_hba.conf, even
if we don't support IPv6.
However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was not made is
only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a
compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6 GUC/fl
Added to TODO:
* Add group object ownership, so groups can rename/drop/grant on objects,
so we can implement roles
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I think the one missing item mentioned was for
Warning: pg_connect() unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: FATAL 1:
Sorry, too many clients already in
/usr/local/www/www.postgresql.org/idocs/opendb.php on line 3
Unable to access database
--
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cramer Consulting
---(end of broadcast)
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We'd have to take it on faith that we should replay the visible files
>> in their name order.
> Couldn't you could just put timestamp information at the beginning if
> each file,
Good thought --- there's already an
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One question I have is: in the event of a crash, why not simply replay
> > all the transactions found in the WAL? Is the startup time of the
> > database that badly affected if pg_control is ignored?
>
> Interesting thought, indeed. S
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> We'd have to take it on faith that we should replay the visible files
> in their name order.
Couldn't you could just put timestamp information at the beginning if
each file, (or perhaps use that of the first transaction), and read the
beginning of each file
26 matches
Mail list logo
