> Summary:
>
> 1. The current implementation is broken.
>
> 2. We have no proper description of how a "fixed" implementation
> should work.
>
> 3. It's hard to fix the current implementation without such a
> description.
>
> 4. Thus, we are in other messages here tryin
> OK, the vote is not shifting from '.' to '@'. Is that how we want to
> go? I like the pg_user enhancement. Marc, comments? This was your
> baby.
>
Would it be hard to setup an internal PG variable for the actual character
to be used?
---(end of broadcast)--
> > > > Well, they aren't separate fields so you can't ORDER BY domain. The dot
> > > > was used so it looks like a schema based on dbname.
>
> IMHO it should look like an user in domain ;)
Agreed, but there is something to be said for doing a sort of users
per domain. This wouldn't be an issu
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 12:45, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > > Well, they aren't separate fields so you can't ORDER BY domain. The dot
> > > > > was used so it looks like a schema based on dbname.
> >
> > IMHO it should look like an user in domain ;)
>
> Agreed, but there is something to be said
Hi guys,
The fulltextindex Makefile looks like this:
subdir = contrib/fulltextindex
top_builddir = ../..
include $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global
MODULE_big = fti
OBJS = list.o chtbl.o fti.o
DATA_built = fti.sql
DOCS = README.fti
SCRIPTS = fti.pl
include $(top_srcdir)/contrib/contrib-global
Damn - I'm getting it too:
P src/backend/utils/fmgr/fmgr.c
P src/backend/utils/mb/conv.c
P src/backend/utils/mb/mbutils.c
P src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/Makefile
cvs server: failed to create lock directory for
`/projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/ascii_
a
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 07:51, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> cvs server: Updating src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/ascii_and_mic
> cvs server: failed to create lock directory for
Marc, can you set up a cron job to set the permissions automatically?
This seems to happen any time someone adds a new
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:11:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have no personal preference between period and @ or whatever. See if
> > you can get some other votes for @ because most left @ when the ORDER BY
> > idea came up from Marc.
>
> FWIW, I st
> > > > > > Well, they aren't separate fields so you can't ORDER BY domain. The dot
> > > > > > was used so it looks like a schema based on dbname.
> > >
> > > IMHO it should look like an user in domain ;)
> >
> > Agreed, but there is something to be said for doing a sort of users
> > per domai
Sorry Bruce, this was included as a part of the patch of the below
subject:
Re: [PATCHES] Dump serials as serial -- not a sequence
Patch may be smart enough to say 'already applied'.
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 01:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied p
> Added to TODO:
>
> o Cluster all tables at once using pg_index.indisclustered or primary key
>
> > > And what happens with those tables that do not have any such index?
> >
> > Nothing, would be my vote. You'd just re-CLUSTER all tables that have
> > been clustered before, the same wa
I'm going to vote for either @ or %.
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 00:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have no personal preference between period and @ or whatever. See if
> > you can get some other votes for @ because most left @ when the ORDER BY
> > idea came up f
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> I guess what he meant was that you were arguing for arguments sake (mine
> is better than yours! Yes it is! Yes it is! ...)
That's the dictionary definition of the phrase.
> and not to get to some
> solution,
and that's the source of the frustration. I only re-subscribe
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
>>>1. The current implementation is broken.
>>>
>>>2. We have no proper description of how a "fixed" implementation
>>>should work.
>>
>>Surely 99% of the implementation problems could be solved with an index type
>>that can
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it theoretically possible to add support to btree for storing table along
> with the indexed value?
That's what we need, all right.
> This would obviously add overhead, so it would only
> be done for spanning indexes. The index would al
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> Agreed, but there is something to be said for doing a sort of users
> per domain. This wouldn't be an issue, I don't think, if there was a
> split_before() and split_after() like functions.
>
> # SELECT split_before('[EMAIL PROTECTED]','@'), split_after('[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Curt Sampson wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
> > > have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
> > > of the disucssion
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 16:08, Joe Conway wrote:
> I already have a function in contrib/dblink, currently called
> dblink_strtok(), which I was going to turn into a builtin function per
> recent discussion (renamed of course). It would work for this but is
> more general:
>
> dblink_strtok(text
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... do we want to modify every 7.2 error message?
>
> Nyet ... but I don't think tacking an offset onto the end of
> "parse error at or near foo" messages is likely to cause the
> sort of generalized havoc you su
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 08:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> There are a veritable ton of other issues to be resolved --- like how do
> we (efficiently) find all the indexes relevant to a given child table
> --- but the physical storage doesn't seem too complicated.
Tom, seems we have yet another false start.
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
> Just my opinion of course, but I think it would be best to have a
> detailed description of how everything in inheritance is supposed to
> work, write a set of tests from that, and then fix the implementation to
> conform to the tests.
>
> And I
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I think this belongs on gborg. Would you create a project there?
> A number of people at OSCON did consider this to be a nice contrib
> feature. Out of curiousity, what makes it more suitable for gborg?
I th
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. Most of this would be easy to implement for curent
> implementation (but perhaps no more efficient than when done by manually
> added rules/triggers) if constraints could contain subqueries.
I don't understand what a constraint containing a subq
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > Just my opinion of course, but I think it would be best to have a
> > detailed description of how everything in inheritance is supposed to
> > work, write a set of tests from that,
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> Actually, I think you'll find that once a PostgreSQL DBA gets to
> the point of designing a sufficently complex schema that inheritance
> might be useful, they quickly bump up against the lack of index and
> constraint spanning (most notably, referential integrity), and
Do any of the encodings with encoding max length > 1 have a constant
character size (e.g. unicode?). If so, how hard would it be to add
another member to pg_wchar_tbl, say:
bool mblen_is_const; /* all chars = max bytes this charset */
Then those character sets code gain back much of the sam
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 10:17, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > I completely agree. This is why I want/wanted to pursue the theory and
> > existing implementations angle.
>
> In theory, it sounds like a good idea. In practice ... ;-)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dijo:
> > OK, the vote is not shifting from '.' to '@'. Is that how we want to
> > go? I like the pg_user enhancement. Marc, comments? This was your
> > baby.
>
> Would it be hard to setup an internal PG variable for the actual character
> to be used?
That'd be good, be
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:07 pm, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > Curt, I think his reply stems from his frustration of chosen content in
> > > many emails that originate from you. We all pretty well understand
> > > postgres has a broken feature. We all unde
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
>> And I think a detailed description comes most easily when you have
>> a logical model to work from.
> I completely agree. This is why I want/wanted to pursue the theory and
> existing implementations
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 03:52 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> > The $libdir variable is defined at the compile time and it points to
> > $prefix/lib. Apparently it points to different place while doing
> > regression tests. One idea is replacing $lindir with the absolute pat
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 07:21 pm, Sander Steffann wrote:
> I think choosing . as the delimiter is a dangerous choice... People have
> not expected it to be special until now, so maybe another character can be
> chosen? I would suggest a colon if possible, so you would get dbname:user.
> I don't
I know this is a off topic. I found this in my mailbox not long ago.
I'm sharing because I thought it might be of some interest. While it's
obviously a PR move by IBM, it certainly was nice to have something of
scale like SF to tout in Postgres' favor as a success story.
Here's a snippet from
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 11:17, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > > Just my opinion of course, but I think it would be best to have a
> > > detailed description of how everything in inheri
We are clearly going for user@db now.
---
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 07:21 pm, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > I think choosing . as the delimiter is a dangerous choice... People have
> > not expected it to be
While the REFERENCES privilege controls who can create foreign keys
referring to one's tables, it seems you can evade it by using CREATE
CONSTRAINT TRIGGER directly.
This is the "slave" portion of a FK constraint I got from pg_dump:
CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "$1"
AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE ON "s
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Appending '@template1' to unadorned usernames, and giving inherited rights
> > across the installation to users with template1 rights? Then you have the
> > unadorned 'lowen' becomes 'lowen@template1' -- but lowen@
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:29 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Hate to complicate things more, but back to a global username, say
> you have user "lowen" that should have access to all databases. What
> happens if there's already a lowen@somedb that's an unprivileged user.
> Assuming lowen is a d
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:29 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Hate to complicate things more, but back to a global username, say
> > you have user "lowen" that should have access to all databases. What
> > happens if there's already a lowen@somedb that
I needed to move a PostgreSQL database to another product but I noticed
that the pg_dump output contains a few artifacts that make the output
nonportable. Most of these should be relatively easy to fix. Here's my
list:
* Boolean values should be dumped as true and false (rather than 't' and
'f'
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 12:47, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > They are moving pgaccess more into the admin role, and pgmonitor fit in
> > > > with that.
> > >
> > > Personally, I kinda like to be able to run admin modularize
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:55 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > If the user 'lowen' is then expanded to 'lowen@template1' it would be
> > stored that way -- and lowen@template1 is different from lowen@pari, for
> > But maybe I'm just misunderstanding the
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I had to add to initdb to create a file /data/PG_INSTALLER and have the
> postmaster read that on startup to determine the installing user.
I object to treating one user specially. There should be a general
mechanism, such as a separate column in pg_shadow.
I also objec
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I think this belongs on gborg. Would you create a project there?
>
> > A number of people at OSCON did consider this to be a nice contrib
> > feature. Out of curious
OK, what I didn't want to do we to over-complexify something that is for
only a few users. In a way that user has to be special for this case
because of the requirement that at least one person be able to connect
when you flip that flag.
Also, I don't want to add a column to pg_shadow. Seems l
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While the REFERENCES privilege controls who can create foreign keys
> referring to one's tables, it seems you can evade it by using CREATE
> CONSTRAINT TRIGGER directly.
Good point.
> It seems we need to check the privilege on the table mentioned in
This email brings up another issue I have seen recently. The use of the
word "object", "strongly object", or "*object*" with stars is a very
confrontational way to express things. It does not foster discussion;
it really puts your heal in the ground and presents a very unswerving
attitude when
Thanks. I will keep it in the queue for CVS commit message sake.
---
Rod Taylor wrote:
> Sorry Bruce, this was included as a part of the patch of the below
> subject:
>
> Re: [PATCHES] Dump serials as serial -- not a sequ
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So the former plain 'postgres' user could still be such to us, to client
> programs, etc, but the backend would assume that that meant
> postgres@template1 -- no namespace collision, and the special case is that
> anyone@template1 has the behavior the un
interesting.
>From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] journaling in contrib ...
>Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:01:41 +0200
Sounds good to me. TODO updated:
o Cluster all tables at once using pg_index.indisclustered set
during previous CLUSTER
---
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > Added to TODO:
> >
> > o Cluster al
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I needed to move a PostgreSQL database to another product but I noticed
> that the pg_dump output contains a few artifacts that make the output
> nonportable. Most of these should be relatively easy to fix.
Most of these look like they would break a
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a way that user has to be special for this case
> because of the requirement that at least one person be able to connect
> when you flip that flag.
Why does anyone need to be special? The behavior should be to try the
given user name, and if that's
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd suggest dropping the talk slides (and you might as well flatten the
> thing into one directory). Perhaps instead the README could include a
> pointer to where to find the talk slides on-line. That'd bring it down
> to half a dozen K which is a more appropriate size for a co
> Do any of the encodings with encoding max length > 1 have a constant
> character size (e.g. unicode?). If so, how hard would it be to add
> another member to pg_wchar_tbl, say:
>
> bool mblen_is_const; /* all chars = max bytes this charset */
>
> Then those character sets code gain back m
I believe the dictionary meaning of 'object' in this context would be 'a
cause for concern or attention'. Each of Peters uses of the word is
highly appropriate, as he was concerned and I'd agree with the
sentiments that those concepts needed attention.
Anyway, object with stars and strongly obje
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Anything in contrib that can be built seperately from the server code,
> that just requires libpq and headers, should be pulled and distributed as
> seperate modules, which has the added benefit that, if listed on GBorg,
> search engines will pick up the modules ...
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't know where else to go with the patch at this point. I
>> > think increasing the number of 'global' users is polluting the
>> > namespace too much,
>>
>> Why? If the installation
> * Is anyone working on using standard foreign key creation commands
> instead of CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER?
Submitted with the pg_constraint patch, and more recently updated to
match cvs tip. I believe Tom wishes to review this prior to
application.
---(end of broad
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I needed to move a PostgreSQL database to another product but I noticed
^^
Surely this is a misprint. ;-)
> that the pg_dump output contains a few artifacts that make the output
> nonportable. Most of these sh
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In a way that user has to be special for this case
> > because of the requirement that at least one person be able to connect
> > when you flip that flag.
>
> Why does anyone need to be special? The behavior should be to try the
> g
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, so try it with and without. I can do that, but it seems more of a
> security problem where you were trying two names instead of one. Do
> people like that?
The nice thing about it is you can have any combination of people with
installation-wide ac
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oh, so try it with and without. I can do that, but it seems more of a
> > security problem where you were trying two names instead of one. Do
> > people like that?
>
> The nice thing about it is you can have any combination of peop
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 14:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oh, so try it with and without. I can do that, but it seems more of a
> > security problem where you were trying two names instead of one. Do
> > people like that?
>
> The nice thing about it is you can
I have been getting this for at least two days:
[matthew@zeut src]$ cvs -v
Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.2 (client/server)
[matthew@zeut src]$ cvs -z3 -d
:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/projects/cvsroot co -P pgsql
[...]
cvs server: Updating pgsql/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/asc
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 02:38 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > The nice thing about it is you can have any combination of people with
> > installation-wide access (create them as joeblow) and people with
> > one-database access (create them as joeblow@joesdatabase). A special
>
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Anything in contrib that can be built seperately from the server code,
> > that just requires libpq and headers, should be pulled and distributed as
> > seperate modules, which has the added benefit that, if listed on GBorg,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > Anything in contrib that can be built seperately from the server code,
> > > that just requires libpq and headers, should be pulled and distributed as
> > > seperate modules, which has the adde
Anyone mind if we bump the DTD version to Docbook 4.2?
This consists on all users who wish to build docs on installing the 4.2
DTD set, and updating some depreciated tags within the sgml files.
comment -> remark
docinfo -> appendixinfo, chapterinfo, bookinfo, etc.
What it buys is a number of u
Reading about the pgmonitor thread and mention of gborg made me wonder
about replication and ready ability to uniformly monitor it. Just as
pg_stat* tables exist to allow for statistic gathering and monitoring in
a uniform fashion, it occurred to me that a predefined set of views
and/or tables fo
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Appending '@template1' to unadorned usernames, and giving inherited rights
> across the installation to users with template1 rights? Then you have the
> unadorned 'lowen' becomes 'lowen@template1' -- but lowen@pari wouldn't have
> access to template1, r
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem is that pg_shadow flat file _only_ has users with passwords. I
> do a btree search of that file, but I am not sure I want to add a dump
> of _all_ users just to allow this. Do we?
Why not? Doesn't seem like a big penalty ...
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > Anything in contrib that can be built seperately from the server code,
> > > > that just requires libpq and headers, should be pulled and dis
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:04 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Appending '@template1' to unadorned usernames, and giving inherited
> > rights across the installation to users with template1 rights? Then you
> > have the unadorned 'lowen' becomes 'lowen@template
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Problem is that pg_shadow flat file _only_ has users with passwords. I
> > do a btree search of that file, but I am not sure I want to add a dump
> > of _all_ users just to allow this. Do we?
>
> Why not? Doesn't seem like a big p
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > They are moving pgaccess more into the admin role, and pgmonitor fit in
> > with that.
>
> Personally, I kinda like to be able to run admin modularized ... they
> *should* be looking at stuff like webmin, where you can plug-n-play admin
> functions as required, or hord
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... it occurred to me that a predefined set of views
> and/or tables for all replication implementations may be worthwhile.
Do we understand replication well enough to define such a set of views?
I sure don't ...
regards, tom la
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > They are moving pgaccess more into the admin role, and pgmonitor fit in
> > > with that.
> >
> > Personally, I kinda like to be able to run admin modularized ... they
> > *should* be looking at stuff like webmin, where you
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:29 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Hate to complicate things more, but back to a global username, say
> > you have user "lowen" that should have access to all databases. What
> > happens if there's already a lowen@somedb that's an unprivileged use
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > They are moving pgaccess more into the admin role, and pgmonitor fit in
> > > > with that.
> > >
> > > Personally, I kinda like to be able to run admin modularized ... they
> > > *should* be
A couple questions regarding encrypted passwords:
(1) There was talk of changing the default value of the
'password_encryption' GUC variable for 7.3; AFAIK, this hasn't
happened yet. Should this be done?
(2) What is the reasoning behind the current storage format of
MD5-encrypted pas
On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:49 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 August 2002 03:29 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > Hate to complicate things more, but back to a global username, say
> > > you have user "lowen" that should have access to all databases. What
> >
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 16:32, Neil Conway wrote:
> A couple questions regarding encrypted passwords:
>
> (1) There was talk of changing the default value of the
> 'password_encryption' GUC variable for 7.3; AFAIK, this hasn't
> happened yet. Should this be done?
Since ODBC is capable of u
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, we got _that_ answer. Looks like gborg. Marc really wants to pump
> that up.
I think if gborg had a different name and looked more like the main site,
more people would consider using it without feeling "kicked out".
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> How can I modify it to build two different C files into two different .so's?
That is next to impossible in the current setup.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe an
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, what I didn't want to do we to over-complexify
That's reasonable, but not when you break other things along the way that
were themselves meant to decomplexify things.
> something that is for only a few users.
If it's only for a few users, please send private patches
Tom Lane writes:
> Most of these look like they would break a lot of people --- for
> example, we can't just arbitrarily change the results of bool_out.
That wouldn't help anyway. I meant to add code in pg_dump (and possibly
the rule recompiler). That doesn't break anything.
> You mean you'd
Neil Conway wrote:
> A couple questions regarding encrypted passwords:
>
> (1) There was talk of changing the default value of the
> 'password_encryption' GUC variable for 7.3; AFAIK, this hasn't
> happened yet. Should this be done?
Strange. I had updated the docs and postgresql.conf, b
Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 16:32, Neil Conway wrote:
> > A couple questions regarding encrypted passwords:
> >
> > (1) There was talk of changing the default value of the
> > 'password_encryption' GUC variable for 7.3; AFAIK, this hasn't
> > happened yet. Should this be don
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I will vote against this as being a major loss of legibility. Perhaps
> > we could compromise on controlling it by a GUC variable, though.
>
> I was afraid of that, but to pick up the theme of the day, I'm not sure if
> I want to overcomplexify things that much. ;-)
OK, I have a new idea. Seems most don't like that 'postgres' is a
special user in this context.
How about if we just document that they have to create a
postgres@template1 user before flipping the switch. That way, there is
no special user, no PG_INSTALLER file, and no double-tests for user
na
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A couple questions regarding encrypted passwords:
> (1) There was talk of changing the default value of the
> 'password_encryption' GUC variable for 7.3; AFAIK, this hasn't
> happened yet. Should this be done?
Hmm. I thought it *was* done, but it
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. I thought it *was* done, but it looks like Bruce forgot to change
> the actual guc.c value? The docs and postgresql.conf.sample claim the
> default is true...
>
> 2002-06-14 21:29 momjian
>
> * doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml,
> src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.c
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Most of these look like they would break a lot of people --- for
>> example, we can't just arbitrarily change the results of bool_out.
> That wouldn't help anyway. I meant to add code in pg_dump (and possibly
> the rule recompile
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about if we just document that they have to create a
> postgres@template1 user before flipping the switch. That way, there is
> no special user, no PG_INSTALLER file, and no double-tests for user
> names.
... and no useful superuser account; if you
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > OK, we got _that_ answer. Looks like gborg. Marc really wants to pump
> > that up.
>
> I think if gborg had a different name and looked more like the main site,
> more people would consider using it without feeling "kick
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also allowed auto-migration to encrypted passwords from an old dump
> file.
Ah, right, that was it: we wanted to be able to have a pg_dumpall script
containing a mix of crypted and noncrypted passwords in CREATE USER
commands be loaded either as-is,
On 14 Aug 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> cvs server: Updating src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/ascii_and_mic
> cvs server: failed to create lock directory for
> `/projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/ascii_and_mic'
>(/projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 18:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > I will vote against this as being a major loss of legibility. Perhaps
> > > we could compromise on controlling it by a GUC variable, though.
> >
> > I was afraid of that, but to pick up the theme of the day, I'm no
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have no personal preference between period and @ or whatever. See if
> > you can get some other votes for @ because most left @ when the ORDER BY
> > idea came up from Marc.
>
> FWIW, I still lean to username
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
