On 2017/07/08 14:12, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 07/07/17 19:54, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:40:55PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>> On 07/07/17 13:29, Amit Langote wrote:
Someone complained about this awhile back [1]. And then it came up again
[2], where Noah
On 2017/07/07 18:47, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I think this should be fixed. Attached is a patch for that.
Looking up the ResultRelInfo using the proposed method in
ExecFindResultRelInfo() can be unreliable sometimes, that is, the method
of using the root
At Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:41:27 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that we really shouldn't do anything about this patch until
> after the CLOG stuff is settled, which it isn't yet. So I'm going to
> mark this Returned with Feedback; let's reconsider it for 9.7.
I am updating
Martin Mai writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was considering changing "the files they are used to build"
>> to "the files that these tools are used to build". I think the
>> main problem is just misunderstanding which things "they" means,
>> and that
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
wrote:
> There's definitely an important concern here that should be addressed:
> how poolers/proxies/middleware/etc can deal with SCRAM, specifically in the
> context of channel binding.
>
> If there is to be a
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Michael,
>
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > IIUC, things will get even worse once channel binding is committed,
>> >
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> So I would suggest the following things to address this issue:
>> 1) Generate a backup history file for backups taken at
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I wonder if we should actually just remove the second message? AFAICT no
>> other tools log that information. Is there any particular
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Wong, Yi Wen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> replication_slot_catalog_xmin is not explictly initialized to
> InvalidTransactionId.
>
>
> Normally, there isn't an issue with this because a freshly mmap'd memory is
> zeroed, and the value of
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
wrote:
> Precisely yesterday I initiated a similar thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d4098ef4-2910-c8bf-f1e3-f178ba77c381%408kdata.com
>
> I think that a) the mere auth mechanism is not enough
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While reading source code, I found that the header comment of
>> streamutil.c is not correct. I guess pg_receivelog is a
+1
Just after writing my last message it clicked and I understood that the
current wording is correct. Your suggestion makes it clearer, though.
Tom Lane wrote:
> I was considering changing "the files they are used to build"
> to "the files that these tools are used to
Oh, now I think I got it...
The tools are not required to build from distribution tarball, because
the files that are normally build by the tools, are already included
in the tarball.
Realizing that, I agree with you that the current wording is correct
and my second suggestion would be as wrong
On 09/07/17 18:47, Victor Drobny wrote:
Hello,
Despite the addition of SCRAM authentification to PostgreSQL 10, MITM
attack can be performed by saying that the server supports, for
example, only md5 authentication. The possible solution for it is
checking authentification method on a
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:42 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>> Using the script attached, I'm getting this very odd result set below.
>>
>> Audit records from COPY to the "foo bar" table aren't
Pantelis Theodosiou writes:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin Mai wrote:
>> Since "they" means the tools, would changing
>> ... the files they are used to build are included in the tarball.
>> to
>> ... the files they use to build [it] are
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin Mai wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> thanks for the clarification. The sentence felt a little bumpy to me,
> but I am native German speaker, so maybe it is just me then.
>
> Since "they" means the tools, would changing
> ... the files they
Hello Tom,
thanks for the clarification. The sentence felt a little bumpy to me,
but I am native German speaker, so maybe it is just me then.
Since "they" means the tools, would changing
... the files they are used to build are included in the tarball.
to
... the files they use to build [it] are
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Mark Rofail wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>
>> Could you, please, specify idea of what you're implementing in more
>> detail?
>>
>
> Ultimatley we would like an indexed scan
Hello,
Despite the addition of SCRAM authentification to PostgreSQL 10, MITM
attack can be performed by saying that the server supports, for example,
only md5 authentication. The possible solution for it is checking
authentification method on a client side and reject connections that
could
Sorry for report late. Our lab's machines crashed for several days.
As I reported in the last email,
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5b6b452.16851.15cf1ec010e.coremail.liu-m...@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
I tried to decrease the contention on SerializableFinishedListLock.
It works actually.
Martin Mai writes:
> I found a typo while reading the source repository documentation:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sourcerepo.html
Hm, I dunno, I like the existing wording better than yours. I agree
that it's a bit unclear that the antecedent of
Hello,
I found a typo while reading the source repository documentation:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sourcerepo.html
Attached patch fixes it.
Cheers
Martin Mai
From 41febee1363aa62babd2b88fbb4ad1a2e8023f13 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Mai
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I wonder if we should actually just remove the second message? AFAICT no
> other tools log that information. Is there any particular reason why we want
> that logging in pg_receivewal when we don't have it in other
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kuntal Ghosh writes:
Wow. Thank you for the wonderful explanation.
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> if histogram_bounds are assigned as,
>>
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>>
>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Stephen,
>> since you committed the
All,
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the
> > >
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> Could you, please, specify idea of what you're implementing in more
> detail?
>
Ultimatley we would like an indexed scan instead of a sequential scan, so I
thought we needed to index the FK array columns first.
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 06:47:26PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/07/06 16:06, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Looks odd to me because the error message doesn't show any DETAIL info;
> > since the CTE query, which produces the message, is the same as the above
> > query, the message should also be
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:59:11PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Peter, all,
>
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > On 6/30/17 04:08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation
> > >> for
> > >> 10, and as
On 6 July 2017 at 22:43, Joe Conway wrote:
> I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
> Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2
>
On 7 July 2017 at 03:21, Amit Langote wrote:
> +1 to releasing this syntax in PG 10.
>
32 matches
Mail list logo