According to SSL_set_verify manpage, you are perhaps talking about
SSL_VERIFY_NONE case? Which has suggestion that you should call
SSL_get_verify_result if you want to know if cert was valid.
But if SSL_VERIFY_PEER is used, this is not needed.
Oh, man I missed that detail.
Please
Hi Marko,
Sorry to go offlist
I believe the standard way of achieving TLS1.0 and above is to use
the SSLv23_client_method() and then remove the SSL protocols with
SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 and SSL_OP_NO_SSLv3. I have to use handwaiving around
standard because I don't believe its documented
if I don't dalloc parameters that allocated with palloc0 then will free the
allocated memory at the end of transaction?
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:34 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
We already have other 'template' objects in the system and I'm not
excited about the confusion. This also applies to 'CreateTemplate',
'CreateTemplateTupleDesc', right down to 'template.h'
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 03:46:06AM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
I believe the standard way of achieving TLS1.0 and above is to use
the SSLv23_client_method() and then remove the SSL protocols with
SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 and SSL_OP_NO_SSLv3. I have to use handwaiving around
standard because I
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 01:05 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, I'd be inclined to just get rid of the
concept of DEFAULT FULL VERSION just to keep the documentation simpler
without losing any real functionality.
I found some explanation of the original reasoning in these
Sent from my iPad
On 30-Nov-2013, at 14:30, mohsen soodkhah mohammadi
mohsensoodk...@gmail.com wrote:
if I don't dalloc parameters that allocated with palloc0 then will free the
allocated memory at the end of transaction?
Yes, palloc allocates memory in contexts, and the memory
On 27 November 2013 10:35 Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
On 26 November 2013 23:11 Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Haribabu kommi
haribabu.ko...@huawei.com wrote:
I tried using of stat'ing in two
Are you still working on this patch?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 11/30/2013 04:00 AM, mohsen soodkhah mohammadi wrote:
if I don't dalloc parameters that allocated with palloc0 then will
free the allocated memory at the end of transaction?
Please read src/backend/utils/mmgr/README
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Okay, I have pushed all these patches, including the fixes suggested
here and then some.
Not sure exactly which patch caused it, but I'm getting a warning
in 9.0 through 9.2:
multixact.c:1553: warning: no previous prototype for 'TrimMultiXact'
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 22:15 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Okay, I have pushed all these patches, including the fixes suggested
here and then some.
Something in these patches is causing a new compiler warning in the 9.2
branch:
multixact.c:1553:1: warning: no previous prototype for
Hi Noah,
On 2013-11-30 00:40:06 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
With regard to fixing things up, ISTM the best bet is heap_prune_chain()
so far. That's executed b vacuum and by opportunistic pruning and we
know we have the
On 2013-11-30 10:57:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Okay, I have pushed all these patches, including the fixes suggested
here and then some.
Not sure exactly which patch caused it, but I'm getting a warning
in 9.0 through 9.2:
multixact.c:1553:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I am not sure if it's a good idea to delay the release because of this,
there are so many other critical issues that that seems like a bad
tradeoff.
Indeed. We already said that this release was being done *now* because
of the replication bug, and
On 2013-11-30 11:18:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We've already taken a credibility hit from introducing a new
bug into the last round of update releases; let's please not take a
risk of doing that again.
On that front: I'd love for somebody else to look at the revised 9.3
freezing logic. It's way
On 2013-11-30 17:06:31 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-11-30 10:57:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Okay, I have pushed all these patches, including the fixes suggested
here and then some.
Not sure exactly which patch caused it, but I'm
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On that front: I'd love for somebody else to look at the revised 9.3
freezing logic.
Do you speak of the changes to xmax freezing arising from the FK lock
optimization?
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
In going over this, I found pre-existing bugs when a tuple was both
inserted and deleted by concurrent transactions, but fixing that is
too invasive to consider for Monday's minor release lockdown. The
attached seems very safe to me, and protects
On 2013-11-30 11:18:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. We already said that this release was being done *now* because
of the replication bug, and I see no reason to change that.
FWIW, I think the two other data corrupting bugs, incomplete freezing
due to truncation (all branches) and freezing
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, I think the two other data corrupting bugs, incomplete freezing
due to truncation (all branches) and freezing overall (in 9.3), are at
least as bad because they take effect on the primary.
Not saying that because of my involvement, but because
On 2013-11-30 11:40:36 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On that front: I'd love for somebody else to look at the revised 9.3
freezing logic.
Do you speak of the changes to xmax freezing arising from the FK lock
optimization?
Yes.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:42:55PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 03/19/2013 09:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
As far as I'm concerned that's the immediate problem fixed. It may be
worth adding a warning on startup if we find non-self-signed certs
On 2013-11-30 11:50:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, I think the two other data corrupting bugs, incomplete freezing
due to truncation (all branches) and freezing overall (in 9.3), are at
least as bad because they take effect on the primary.
Not
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:00:58PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
The problem with log_newpage_buffer() is that we'd quite possibly issue
one such call per item on a page. And that might become quite
expensive. Logging ~1.5MB per 8k page in the worst case sounds a bit
scary.
I had in mind
On 2013-11-30 12:22:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:00:58PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
The problem with log_newpage_buffer() is that we'd quite possibly issue
one such call per item on a page. And that might become quite
expensive. Logging ~1.5MB per 8k page in the
In our fine manual, at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/typeconv-union-case.html
it's claimed that the nontrivial parts of UNION type resolution
work like this:
4. Choose the first non-unknown input type which is a preferred type in
that category, if there is one.
5. Otherwise,
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2013-11-30 11:50:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I was planning to draft up the release notes today. Can you propose
text about the above?
I can, but it will be a couple of hours before I can give it serious
thought (starving and insanity being
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This came up because some of my Salesforce colleagues were griping about
the fact that UNION isn't commutative. They argue that the type
resolution behavior ought not be sensitive at all to the ordering of the
inputs. I'm not sure we can achieve that in
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:45:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com wrote:
CHECK_STACK_DEPTH checks if errordata_stack_depth is negative.
Move the dereference of errordata[errordata_stack_depth] after
the check to avoid out-of-bounds read.
I could not get TLSv1.1+ with that. But I'm working against
Ubuntu 12.04 default OpenSSL. I'll try with other versions too.
That looks like a Ubuntu 12.04 limitation: http://postimg.org/image/3ju4fu0y1/
I would bet the 1.0.0 version of OpenSSL is less that 1.0.0h:
$ ldd
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Once the patch is applied, I will be patching pg_upgrade by appending to
PGOPTIONS, but that will only be for 9.4. The patch will be too risky
and there are not enough problem reports to override that and warrant
backpatching.
pg_dumpall patch applied,
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:34 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
The other main point that will change the current code is dealing with
superusers and security concerns. Baring objections, I'm going to
implement a variation of what I did propose in the thread:
When a superuser CREATE EXTENSION
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 09:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
attached patch implement unified behave for DROP IF EXISTS statements
as was discussed
src/backend/catalog/namespace.c:1743: indent with spaces.
src/backend/commands/dropcmds.c:322: indent with spaces.
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 01:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I want to be able to download extension.zip from pgxn.org, and then
install it on a server. I want to be able to install it the traditional
way, by unzipping it to the filesystem, or via libpq by using this new
feature.
I see
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:34 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
I merged your patch in, rebased against master, fixed some more typos I
found, and filled in the gaps you found in the docs. Version 17 of the
patch is attached to that email, passes `make check`.
A couple more questions:
1. During
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:55:10PM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
This covers pg_dumpall globals. Tested with a read-only postgres
database and with default_transaction_read_only = on in the
postgresql.conf file.
It does nothing about pg_upgrade,
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
I think that Stephen was just talking about the naming. I would have
expected the names to be something like xtmpl (which is the shortest
abbreviation that came to my mind) rather than tpl, for instance. Use
of template is a bit ambiguous.
To be honest I'm
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have fixed pg_upgrade in git-head with the attached patch, which
prepends default_transaction_read_only=false to PGOPTIONS.
What is the point of this, given that Kevin fixed pg_dumpall? Don't
those fixes take care of the issue?
If your argument is that
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
When a superuser CREATE EXTENSION against a template that has been
provided by a non-privileged user, automatically SET ROLE to that user
before doing so, avoiding escalation privileges.
That proposal is worded like a special case for superusers, and
On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Also consider multi-tenancy installations. Certainly, you don't want any
database owner to be able to review PL code from any other database
owner in the same cluster when each database owner is another customer
I'm planning to do a
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
1. During the initial development of extensions, there was discussion
about ordered version numbers and dependencies on the version (e.g.
requires foo = 2.1). Outside the scope of this patch, of course, but is
that something that we can still do later? Or
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
Without that, all of the information about a given extension is already in
the database in our dependency system. As you pointed out, there was
That's not entirely true. We would still be missing some information
from the extension control file.
Dimitri,
On Saturday, November 30, 2013, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
The current extension model is simple enough to reason about. A script
must be provided in a template and is executed at CREATE EXTENSION time
or at ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE time, and pg_dump only contains the CREATE
EXTENSION
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I have fixed pg_upgrade in git-head with the attached patch,
which prepends default_transaction_read_only=false to PGOPTIONS.
What is the point of this, given that Kevin fixed pg_dumpall?
Don't those fixes take care
I've produced another revision, attached. Changes:
* Fixes the compiler warnings on your environment.
* Normalizes query string with the shared lock held (not always, just
in case its needed). In master, this doesn't have to happen with a
shared lock held, so because of this, but also because of
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What is the point of this, given that Kevin fixed pg_dumpall?
Don't those fixes take care of the issue?
If there were databases or users with default_transaction_read_only
set in the old cluster, the pg_dumpall run
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
How about this?
Hmm. You say:
+If the command returns a nonzero exit status then a warning log
+message will be written. An exception is that if the command was
+terminated by a signal or an error
On 2013-11-30 11:50:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
FWIW, I think the two other data corrupting bugs, incomplete freezing
due to truncation (all branches) and freezing overall (in 9.3), are at
least as bad because they take effect on the primary.
Not
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 06:48:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
What is the point of this, given that Kevin fixed pg_dumpall?
Don't those fixes take care of the issue?
If there were databases or users with
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:14:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Greg Jaskiewicz gryz...@me.com wrote:
Looking around the code Today, one of my helpful tools detected this dead
code.
As far as I can see, it is actually unused call to strlen() in
formatting.c,
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 22:55 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
So we need the default_major_version capabilities, whatever the
name we choose. Hence my inclusion of that feature in the Extension
Template patch.
What we need is a means to install versions for which we don't have full
Hello,
we found this issue year ago -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cafj8prahvzupfbx+8ey-xhfwbo8bxvu_ynmbapsdj8w-ara...@mail.gmail.com
I try to simulate this error, but without success - so I prepared patch
that had to help with identification of this issue. Important part is
backport
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Please read src/backend/utils/mmgr/README
And that as well directly in the docs:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/xfunc-c.html#AEN53984
The memory allocated by palloc will be freed automatically at the end
of
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 23:03 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
When a superuser CREATE EXTENSION against a template that has been
provided by a non-privileged user, automatically SET ROLE to that user
before doing so, avoiding escalation privileges.
Hello
2013/12/1 Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com
I've produced another revision, attached. Changes:
* Fixes the compiler warnings on your environment.
* Normalizes query string with the shared lock held (not always, just
in case its needed). In master, this doesn't have to happen with a
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
After this fix it should be ready for commit
Whoops. I forgot to change that when I changed the name of the
parameter at the last minute. Sorry about that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
2013/11/30 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net
trailing whitespace
fixed,
Peter, what application do you use for this check?
Regards
Pavel
commit 88e0a6b97968f88aaa1e3cef17fc2e6e2ca9f25d
Author: Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gooddata.com
Date: Fri Nov 29 11:10:07 2013 +0100
initial
diff
58 matches
Mail list logo
