KaiGai Kohei wrote:
I have to focus on my patches with highest priority in CommitFest,
but it may be possible to help reviewing the proposed patches in
the off-fest season. It is illegal/undesirable for the process?
No, that's absolutely fine. During commitfests patch review is needed
the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Do you
have any sense of how soon you'll feel confident to commit either
patch?
I'm bad at estimating. Not this week for sure, and next week I'm
traveling and won't be able to
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:18 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Is it possible to use WAL-skipping and BulkInsertState in
ATRewriteTable() ?
If ok, I'll submit a patch for the next commitfest.
Yes
Patch attached.
This patch skip WAL writes
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
On 10/14/2009 05:33 PM, Dave Page wrote:
No. Any checks at the client are worthless, as they can be bypassed by
10 minutes worth of simple coding in any of a dozen or more languages.
Why care?
Because many large (and
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
There's been a lot of churn in hot standby since the beginning of the
commitfest, so I thought it would be good to summarize where we are.
Attached is the latest and greatest patch against CVS head, taken from
the hs-riggs branch
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Well, you would lose anyway if the DBA switches the pg_hba.conf setting
from md5 to password without telling you.
True :-(. Anybody for
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:33 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Let me know if I'm missing something. And please feel free to help, by
testing, by reviewing and commenting on the patch, or by addressing any
of the above issues. I will continue working on this, but this is a big
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I think that the auto_explain changes out to be part of
the same patch as the core EXPLAIN changes
Here is a rewritten patch to add EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) and
support for it by contrib/auto_explain. I removed pg_stat_statements
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:37:43PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
the attached patch makes ECPG more robust
against applications that free() strings by storing
its own copy of the prepared statement name.
Please do not call strdup() directly in libecpg. Instead please use
ecpg_strdup() which
Michael Meskes írta:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:37:43PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
the attached patch makes ECPG more robust
against applications that free() strings by storing
its own copy of the prepared statement name.
Please do not call strdup() directly in libecpg.
hi there,
i have trouble compiling a c style program ( filename with extension cpp)
written for visual C++.
When i added the following #includes,
#include spi.h
#include trigger.h
compilation errors say error C2899: typename cannot be used outside a template
declaration.
I need the above
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 17:44 +0800, mingsoftt wrote:
I have thought of making visual c++ of not recognizing typename as a
keyword, say, by turning some compiler options to forced c mode
( rather than c++).
Is there indeed such an option? If not, is there a way to resolve my
problem as
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
bigger problems, like that slip of paper in their desk drawer with
the password written on it.
See my previous comment about dates. Check-box items aside, I have
absolutely no desire to try to give the
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Sure. I'm envisioning that what the env variable or connection option
actually does is cause libpq to include a SET command for a GUC
variable in the initial connection request packet. Compare, say,
PGCLIENTENCODING -
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Kevin Grittner
bigger problems, like that slip of paper in their desk drawer with
the password written on it.
See my previous comment about
Dave Page escreveu:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Sure. I'm envisioning that what the env variable or connection option
actually does is cause libpq to include a SET command for a GUC
variable in the initial connection request packet. Compare, say,
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
a) Added PQsetdbLogin2() with an additional option for the application
name (my guess is 'no').
b) Updated the apps to use PQconnectdb
c) Something else?
a) is absolutely right out. b) is okay from an overall viewpoint but
you would find yourself doing
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
a) Added PQsetdbLogin2() with an additional option for the application
name (my guess is 'no').
b) Updated the apps to use PQconnectdb
c) Something else?
a) is absolutely right out. b)
Mark Mielke wrote:
Does Oracle really do password checks on the base SQL commands used to
change an Oracle password? That sounds silly.
In Oracle you can write a stored procedure to check passwords;
it is invoked whenever a user is created or altered.
No matter how you change the password,
2009/10/15 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
This seems to me to be a
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing useful.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
EXPLAIN BUFFERS only shows 'hit', 'read' and 'temp read' in text format
to fit in display, but xml or json format contains all of them.
I was very careful when I submitted the machine-readable explain patch
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, I am wondering exactly what you think psql would *do* with the
parameter if it had it. If the answer is force the setting to be
'psql', that's the wrong answer. IMO you'd really want
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/10/15 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing useful.
I disagree. When I analysed speed of some operations, I found some
unwanted trigger calls should to slow down applications. I am for any
2009/10/15 Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com:
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
I have to focus on my patches with highest priority in CommitFest,
but it may be possible to help reviewing the proposed patches in
the off-fest season. It is illegal/undesirable for the process?
No,
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
EXPLAIN BUFFERS only shows 'hit', 'read' and 'temp read' in text format
to fit in display, but xml or json format contains all of them.
I was very careful when I
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, I am wondering exactly what you think psql would *do* with the
parameter if it had it. If the answer is force the
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
EXPLAIN BUFFERS only shows 'hit', 'read' and 'temp read' in text format
to fit in display, but
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hmm. Maybe this is a generic problem. Should libpq offer some sort
of help? Maybe a secondaryappname parameter that doesn't override
the env variable.
is it worth uglifying libpq? All
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Another possibility that should be mentioned for the record is that
we could special-case the appname parameter inside libpq, so that the
environment variable takes precedence over the conn setting instead
of the other way
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
Looking further, I think this might be quite clean:
- Add a precedence flag to PQconninfoOption
- In conninfo_parse, in the section that grabs the envvars for empty
params, modify the logic to override any existing values if a value is
set in the
On 10/15/2009 03:54 AM, Dave Page wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Mark Mielkem...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
On 10/14/2009 05:33 PM, Dave Page wrote:
No. Any checks at the client are worthless, as they can be bypassed by
10 minutes worth of simple coding in any of a dozen or
On 10/15/2009 10:08 AM, Dave Page wrote:
It's certainly true that there are other ways for users to compromise
their passwords if they want. The fact remains though, that most other
DBMSs (and all major operating systems I can think of) offer password
policy features as non-client checks which
On 10/15/2009 10:38 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Mark Mielke wrote:
Does Oracle really do password checks on the base SQL commands used to
change an Oracle password? That sounds silly.
In Oracle you can write a stored procedure to check passwords;
it is invoked whenever a user is created
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
Not so clear to me. If they're doing strong checks, this means they're
sending passwords in the clear or only barely encoded, or using some OTHER
method than 'alter role ... password ...' to change the password.
Some are
Mark Mielke wrote:
On 10/15/2009 10:08 AM, Dave Page wrote:
...other
DBMSs (and all major operating systems I can think of) offer password
policy features as non-client checks...we are compared ...
Not so clear to me. If they're doing strong checks, this means they're
sending passwords in
On 10/15/09 9:41 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Sometimes that can be for huge projects, where it is
necessary to justify every difference in check-box items against other
products to get past the early eval stages. Like it or not, that is a
fact, and this hampers our adoption.
Precisely, and I think
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
You miss my point (and conveniently cut it out). For users who accidentally
break policy vs users who purposefully circumvent policy - the approaches
must be different, and the risk management decision may be different.
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
[ patch r2363 ]
I promised I would review this today, but I just can't make myself do it
in any detail. This is too large, too ugly, and it is going in a
direction that I do not like or want to spend any of my time on.
The overwhelming impression after
(I'd bet lunch that the one about add_missing_from is bogus, too,
or could easily be made so. mysql isn't forgiving about missing
FROM items, so it's hard to believe that they have a lot of such
things no matter how little they care about Postgres.)
OpenACS does the old-style DELETEs
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we were using some kind of real public key system and someone
suggested breaking it to add password complexity checking, I would
understand the outrage here. But I don't understand why everyone is
so worked up about having an *optional* *flag* to
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Enabling the inclusion of a password checker in the client *would*
improve things by preventing stupid users from setting their password
the same as their username, or to a 3-letter word, or anything equally
stupid which
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we were using some kind of real public key system and someone
suggested breaking it to add password complexity checking, I would
understand the outrage here. But I don't understand
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we were using some kind of real public key system and someone
suggested breaking it to add password complexity
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so we're in violent agreement here?
From a technical perspective I think we have been for a while. Though
clearly some people disagree with my assertion that putting any form
of policy enforcement in the client is not
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:22:52AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
(I'd bet lunch that the one about add_missing_from is bogus, too,
or could easily be made so. mysql isn't forgiving about missing
FROM items, so it's hard to believe that they have a lot of such
things no matter how little they
On 10/15/2009 01:44 PM, Dave Page wrote:
I don't deal with prospective clients, which is where this comes from.
I do deal with a team of (pre)sales engineers who complain about this,
and maybe half-a-dozen other issues on a very regular basis. They tell
me that PostgreSQL loses out in early
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yes, and it's an optional flag that could perfectly well be implemented
in the plugin that I think we do have consensus to add a hook for.
The argument is over why do we need to litter the
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
I suppose in the worst case, I could just have pgAdmin throw the
error, and then add a per-server option to disable password hashing in
the relevant places, but I'd far rather have that automated so it
can't be set unnecessarily.
As I commented before, I
On 10/15/2009 02:02 PM, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so we're in violent agreement here?
From a technical perspective I think we have been for a while. Though
clearly some people disagree with my assertion that
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
It depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to treat users as monkeys
that you do not trust, even with their own password, and the DBA as God, who
you absolutely do trust, than you are correct.
I don't know about
I've been spending some time debugging a customer's performance problem,
and what I see is that there are a bunch of processes all waiting for
the relation extension lock for a particular relation.
While looking at this code I notice something that troubles me. Just
after extending the relation,
Dave Page wrote:
I never said it wasn't - in fact I said from the outset it was about
box-checking, and that anyone doing things properly will use
LDAP/SSPI/Kerberos etc.
I don't understand why the box-checkers can't already check that
box; with the explanation stating Yes - by using LDAP or
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
While looking at this code I notice something that troubles me. Just
after extending the relation, we don't insert the new page into the FSM.
So if the extending backend does not do any other insertion on the page,
it is forgotten as possible
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
That argument is based on a completely evidence-free assumption, namely
that this patch would make your case faster. Executing the WHEN tests
is hardly going to be zero cost. It's not too hard to postulate cases
where implementing a filter this way would
Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
It's pretty often the case (IME) that calling a trigger is the only
point in the session where you fire plpgsql, and that's a visible
cost.
Wouldn't a connection pool solve this?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Ron Mayer
rm...@cheapcomplexdevices.com wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
I never said it wasn't - in fact I said from the outset it was about
box-checking, and that anyone doing things properly will use
LDAP/SSPI/Kerberos etc.
I don't understand why the box-checkers
recovery_starts_paused is useless as it is. It pauses the recovery right
after the first WAL record, all right, but before we see a running-xacts
record, we won't let any backends in. And if you can't connect, you
can't unpause, so it's stuck forever.
It should probably behave as pause after
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
While looking at this code I notice something that troubles me. Just
after extending the relation, we don't insert the new page into the FSM.
So if the extending backend does not do any other insertion on the page,
it is
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Hmm ... this is something that had not occured to me earlier. There is
a connection pool here (JDBCConnectionPool I'm told; hadn't heard about
that one) and there are about 100 backends permanently, not all of which
are always busy. Perhaps
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp writes:
I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
This seems to me to be
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Do you
have any sense of how soon you'll feel confident to commit either
patch?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
One other question - you note that WriteConsoleW() could fail if
stderr is redirected. Are you saying that it will always fail when
stderr is redirected, or only
Tom Lane wrote:
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com writes:
[ patch r2363 ]
I promised I would review this today, but I just can't make myself do it
in any detail. This is too large, too ugly, and it is going in a
direction that I do not like or want to spend any of my time on.
The
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Maybe if I weren't burned out after a month of CommitFesting, I could
muster a more positive reaction, but right now I just can't summon any
enthusiasm for this.
Based on this review, I am marking this patch Rejected.
For
Subject line pretty much says it all.
Thanks,
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Maybe if I weren't burned out after a month of CommitFesting, I could
muster a more positive reaction, but right now I just can't summon any
enthusiasm for this.
Based on this review, I am marking this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I'm trying to figure out why I keep getting an error when trying to COPY
data into a table. The basic process is to
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 01:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
recovery_starts_paused is useless as it is. It pauses the recovery right
after the first WAL record, all right, but before we see a running-xacts
record, we won't let any backends in. And if you can't connect, you
can't unpause, so
69 matches
Mail list logo
