Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Jing Wang wrote: > Hi all, > > Enclosed please find the updated patch with covering security labels on > database. > > The patch cover the following commands: > i can't apply your patch cleanly i think it needs rebase Regards Surafel

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

i can't apply your patch cleanly i think it needs rebase Regards Surafel On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jing Wang wrote: > Hi All, > > Enclosed please find the patch only for the pg_dump using the 'comment on > current_database' statement. > > This patch should be

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Jing Wang wrote: > Hi all, > > The attached patch is to support the feature "COMMENT ON DATABASE > CURRENT_DATABASE". The solution is based on the previous discussion in [2] . > Your patch doesn't cover security labels on databases which

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Daniel Verite wrote: > > > PGC_POSTMASTER implies that it's an instance-wide setting. > Is is intentional? I can understand that it's more secure for this not to > be changeable in an existing session, but it's also much less usable if you

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

hey Vaishnavi > > I think GUC's name can be something like "multiple_query_execution" and > setting it ON/OFF will be better. I think others will also come up with > some suggestions here as the current name doesn't go well with other > existing GUCs. > Thank you very much for the suggestion

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

4 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com> writes: > >> This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an > >> additional defense against SQL-injection attacks. > > > > This is

[HACKERS] DELETE and UPDATE with LIMIT and ORDER BY

the necessity of allowing limit and order by clause to be used with delete and update statement is discussed in the past and added to the todo list preveouse mailing list descissions http://archives.postgresql.org/pgadmin-hackers/2010-04/msg00078.php

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

>> >> 2017-03-28 13:58 GMT+02:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com>: >> >>> can you help with fixing it Pavel? >>> >> >> There must be some new preanalyze stage - you have to know result columns >> before you are starting a analyze &g

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

can you help with fixing it Pavel? On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > fresh update - I enhanced Value node by location field as Tom proposal. > > Few more regress tests. > > But I found significant issue, that needs bigger fix - Surafel,

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

> > > I took a quick look through this and noted that it fails to touch > ruleutils.c, which means that dumping of views containing CORRESPONDING > certainly doesn't work. > fixed > Also, the changes in parser/analyze.c seem rather massive and > correspondingly hard to review. Is it possible to

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: > > I have not any objection - I'll mark this patch as ready for commiter > > > I'm a little disturbed by the fact that determineMatchingColumns() > is called twice, and more

Re: [HACKERS] Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER

> > > I am sending the review of this patch I found the following v Use tage in documentation v Don’t modified existing test case add new one instead v Comment in pg_constraint.c is extended make it short v Error message can be more guider if it tells about general rule v Wrong result

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

hi Some errors are related to just CORRESPONDING without any columns. So using > expr doesn't help here. So parse node CORRESPONDING can solve both issues. > > In current implementation pointing to a node means pointing to a node’s first element so I don’t think we can be able to point to

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I am sending minor update - cleaning formatting and white spaces, error > messages + few more tests > Thank you very much for your help > Maybe correspondingClause needs own node type with attached location.

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

Surafel On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi > > 2017-03-09 17:19 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 2017-03-09 13:18 GMT+01:00 Surafel Temesgen <surafel3...@gmail.com>: >&

Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design

Hi , Here is a patch corrected as your feedback except missed tests case because corresponding by clause is implemented on the top of set operation and you can’t do that to set operation without corresponding by clause too Eg postgres=# SELECT 1 a, 2 b, 3 c UNION SELECT 4 a, 5 b, 6 c, 8 d;

Re: [HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

As far as my understanding the issue at that time was inability to process creation of a database and connecting to it with one query string and that can be solved by fixing transaction restriction checks for CREATE DATABASE or disallowing multiple queries in PQexe. If the issue solved and

[HACKERS] Disallowing multiple queries per PQexec()

This assignment is on todo list and has a benefit of providing an additional defense against SQL-injection attacks. Previous mailing list discussion is here and I attach a small patch that fix the issue by checking whether query