Re: [HACKERS] Adding MERGE to the TODO list (resend with subject)

2004-05-09 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE, or on failure, INSERT --- Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>Except you can keep trying and trying without the outermost transaction > >>failing. > > > > But t

Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Security documentation

2004-05-09 Thread Nigel J. Andrews
While I can understand your concern over security I simply do not know how you can protect against: On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Alex J. Avriette wrote: > ... or somebody may be passing in the > de rigeur '; select * from sensitive_table; ...' attempts (this is very > common, as you know, in CGI applicati

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we determine the default data directory off the configure option > --localstatedir then we can simply use the same mechanisms that have > been discussed for determining all the other directories at run time > relative to the binaries. Agreed, we

Re: [HACKERS] Adding MERGE to the TODO list (resend with subject)

2004-05-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 01:32:58PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>Except you can keep trying and trying without the outermost transaction > >>failing. > > > >But that won't provide the necessary next key locking you mentioned in > >your first email, will it? > > No, but since I can loo

Re: [HACKERS] Nested transactions

2004-05-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:57:45AM -0300, Cassio Polpo de Campos wrote: > I know nested transactions did not work on that versions, but this > is exactly what I want to know. What happens if I put nested begins, > commits, etc? Suppose we have the following: > > begin work > ... > begin work > ..

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: > The thing I like about the relative-path idea is that it actually > improves and extends our existing ability to support multiple > installs. I wonder whether we could even allow PGDATA to default > to a relative path (../data)? Doesn't work very well when you install into /usr/

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Tom Lane
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The downside to this is that it isn't as friendly for various > command line tools that people run, since they then have to specify > the path on the command line. Exactly. Not only unfriendly, but quite error-prone, especially in a multiple-install situa

[HACKERS] Nested transactions

2004-05-09 Thread Cassio Polpo de Campos
Dear postgresql hackers, I'm trying to find out what happens if I use nested transactions in postgresql from 7.2.x to 7.4.x. I visited and surfed across many webpages and documents but I did not find anything (I did not look at the sources yet). I know nested transactions did not work on that ver

Re: [HACKERS] Advice regarding configuration parameters

2004-05-09 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I have been thinking for some time about a generic mechanism to >> configure procedural languages. It could be a text array in >> pg_language that you could fill at will. > One big question is whether the per-language variable

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Shachar Shemesh said: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>Comments? >> >> > What's wrong with the way it's done by everybody else? > > Have hardcoded paths (determined at configure time), and allow override > using a config file. Have a command line option for saying where the > config file should be. > >

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint

2004-05-09 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jan Wieck wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So Imho the target should be to have not much IO open for the checkpoint, > >> so the fsync is fast enough, even if serial. > > > > The best we can do is push out dirty pages with write() via th

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Shachar Shemesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 May 2004 10:20 > To: Dave Page > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs > > I don't think that's a problem at all: > 1. Believe it or

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Dave Page wrote: Anyway, the point is that to do that you need to write to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\EventLog\ (off the top of my head) otherwise, the messages logged in the event log are pretty unreadable. Service installation will also require admin privileges. Regards

[HACKERS] pg_autovacuum Win32 service patch #2

2004-05-09 Thread Dave Page
[Third attempt to send this - dunno where they're all going!] I forgot to CC the start of this to -hackers last time - please see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-05/msg00034.php for background. Following Magnus' suggestions yesterday I made the following changes: - The ev

Re: [HACKERS] Relocatable installs

2004-05-09 Thread Dave Page
It's rumoured that Marc Slemko once said: >> > For Windows, replace config file with "Registry". That is usually >> > hardcoded for (depending on whether you want it changeable per-user) >> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\\ (replace >> > HKLM with HKEY_LOCAL_USER if you want per-user config). >> >> D