But...it seems kind of hacky to scan it again for owners and privs - are
you sure you want me to go that way?
If there's not a big performance penalty, sure. Being fully compatible
with existing archive files is a sufficient win to justify sins much
worse than this one.
Ah, crap.
I tried adding t
Hi list,
I'm trying to create a varchar clone (called varcharci). I have defined
new functions called "varcharciin", "varcharciout", "varcharcisend" and
"recv", using the "varcharin" etc. definitions (i.e. - builtin
functions). I defined the type. Everything works, except that when I try
to cre
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried adding the extra scan in and it as all well and good up until
> the second where I realised that the TocEntry struct has no field that
> allows me to know the correct way of finding the full descriptor of each
> object.
Ugh. Definit
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do I need to do in order to get the width specifier into my type?
Rewrite the grammar. Width modifiers are only supported on types that
are hard-wired into the grammar, mainly because they look way too much
like function calls to be distinguishe
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> What do I need to do in order to get the width specifier into my
> type?
This is not possible with user-defined types.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Ugh. Definitely an oversight. Don't suppose you want to think about
pulling the name out of the DROP command ;-) ?
Yeah, I've already done it - it's ugleeey, but it works :P
I'm running out of time unfortunately, and I need to know from you
whether I should go back to my work on making owner and
* Do we no longer worry about the SCHEMA AUTHORIZATION clause? I might
set it to keep being issued in 'sql standard mode', but otherwise we
cannot use it in dumps any more.
Actually, that's not true - I'm being silly. We can use the
AUTHORIZATION clause instead of ALTER SCHEMA ... OWNER TO :)
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, this brings up another point - people occasionally complain on
> the list that pg_dump is not considered important enough :( ie. Is
> there any good reason we cannot backport the entire new pg_dump to the
> 7.4 branch, and change t
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We currently fully qualify DROP command with the namespace so that drops
> will not accidentally modify the system catalogs. Shouldn't this also
> be necessary on ALL non-CREATE commands?
> Otherwise, if the create table command associated wi
I don't buy it. There's a tradeoff here between certainty of doing what
you want and having a script that is easy to edit. DROP is a dangerous
weapon and we should be circumspect about applying it, but ALTER OWNER
etc are much less so.
Also, the point about qualifying the DROP is that you do not
* Drop commands for TYPEs have 'CASCADE' on the end (has that always
been true)
Yeek. That's got to be a hangover from pre-dependency-chasing days.
Let's lose it in our current output, at least.
I think it's necessary due to the circular dependency between types and
their I/O functions.
Chris
-
I've been bothered for awhile about a couple of inconsistencies in our
handling of user-defined type names: you can't schema-qualify a type
name that you use to prefix a literal constant, and you can't use
typmod qualifiers with user-defined types. Shachar Shemesh's complaint
today about the latte
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... The acl is still there from when brett used to own that table?
> Do you still plan to fix that?
Yeah, that's still on my should-fix-for-7.5 list (and I think Fabien was
going to, or already did, submit some ACL-hacking code to help). That
Hello all,
I've created a lock timeout patch and it's attached.
When a transaction is blocked by another transaction because of
waiting a lock, we need a lock timeout in some cases.
Using this patch, the lock timeout is enabled with
'lock_timeout = ' directive in postgresql.conf,
and if a ti
Yeah, that's still on my should-fix-for-7.5 list (and I think Fabien was
going to, or already did, submit some ACL-hacking code to help). That
is, ALTER OWNER should adjust the ACL so that grants made by/to the
former owner now appear to be by/to the new owner.
However, there's still the problem t
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When a transaction is blocked by another transaction because of
> waiting a lock, we need a lock timeout in some cases.
Isn't there an existing solution for this problem?
regards, tom lane
---(end of b
Tom,
I guess the transaction cancellation from the client
using PQrequestCancel() is available, but the cancellation
logic must be implemented in the client-application using
signal or thread.
I think detecting such situation on server-side is not
available now, and SQL Server or DB2 have same fu
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess the transaction cancellation from the client
> using PQrequestCancel() is available, but the cancellation
> logic must be implemented in the client-application using
> signal or thread.
Actually I think the recommended solution involves using
statement_timeout terminates large sort or scan
even if it is running, doesn't it?
statement_timeout doesn't care that
the process is waiting a lock or running.
I don't want to terminate a running query.
So a lock waiting backend shold be killed.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTEC
Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> statement_timeout terminates large sort or scan
> even if it is running, doesn't it?
> statement_timeout doesn't care that
> the process is waiting a lock or running.
> I don't want to terminate a running query.
> So a lock waiting backend shold be k
Chris KL just raised an issue on IRC:
test=> create table test (a int4) tablespace pg_default;
ERROR: permission denied for tablespace pg_default
This wasn't encountered in my original patch because
pg_tablespace_aclmask() had this test reasonably early on:
+ if(tbloid == DEFAULTTBLSPC)
+
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd accept a mechanism to enforce a timeout at the lock level if you
> could show me a convincing use-case for lock timeouts instead of
> statement timeouts, but I don't believe there is one. I think this
> proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
I think statement_timeout
22 matches
Mail list logo
