Re: [HACKERS] Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug

2000-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The correct fix is CommandCounterIncrement() in the DROP USER loop, so that later iterations can see the changes made by prior iterations. Since postgre now suppport referential integrity and cascading deletes, wouldn't it make more sense to use that code to

Re: [HACKERS] Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug

2000-10-18 Thread Tom Lane
Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, any comments? Can anyone else repeat this? I hope this is easy to fix. I guess the quick fix is to disallow multiple users to be specified in the drop user command. The correct fix is CommandCounterIncrement() in the DROP USER loop, so that later

[HACKERS] Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug

2000-10-17 Thread Matthew
I think we have found a bug in postgresql 7.0.2. If I'm right then a fix for this should probably be added to 7.0.3 also. Anyway without further adieu: I have attached detail of my session at the end of this email, but the summary is as follows. If I run the following commands my

Re: [HACKERS] Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug

2000-10-17 Thread Tom Lane
Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we have found a bug in postgresql 7.0.2. Bug confirmed --- on a compilation with Asserts enabled, this sequence causes an assert failure during update of pg_group_name_index in the DROP USER command, in both 7.0.* and current sources. I ran out of