Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness
-Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 January 2003 21:28 To: Didier Moens Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key wierdness Didier Moens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just formally tested on PostgreSQL 7.2.2 (logs sent to Dave), and the results are perfectly inline with those from 7.2.3 : a massive slowdown when upgrading from pgadminII 1.4.2 to 1.4.12. I thought the complaint involved PG 7.3? There is no schema syntax in 7.2. puzzled No there isn't. pgAdmin uses the same unqualified SQL in all cases on 7.2.x... Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
I'm not sure how adequately these topics are covered elsewhere, but you should probably provide at least a pointer if not improved information: * Should have a mention of the pgcrypto code in contrib. * Brain hiccup, but isn't there some type of password datatype * Explanation of problems/solutions of using md5 passwords inside postgresql. this has tripped up a lot of people upgrading to 7.3 * possibly go into server resource issues and the pitfalls in giving free form sql access to just anyone. (Think unconstrained join on all tables in a database) hth, Robert Treat On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 00:01, Dan Langille wrote: With reference to my post to the PostgreSQL Password Cracker on 2003-01-02, I've promised to write a security document for the project. Here it is, Sunday night, and I can't sleep. What better way to get there than start this task... My plan is to write this in very simple HTML. I will post the draft document on my website and post the URL here from time to time for feedback. Please make suggestions for content. So far, I will cover these items: - .pgpass (see http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/libpq-files.html) - local connections - remote connections (recommending SSL) - pg_hba (only in passing, most of that is at http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?client-authentication.html) - running the postmaster as a specific user That doesn't sound like much. Surely you can think of something else to add. Should I post this to another list for their views? OK, that's done it. I'm ready for sleep now. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
[HACKERS] Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE AS/SELECT INTO
We've gotten a couple of complaints now about the fact that 7.3 doesn't include an OID column in a table created via CREATE TABLE AS or SELECT INTO. Unless I hear objections, I'm going to revert it to including an OID, and back-patch the fix for 7.3.2 as well. See discussion a couple days ago on pgsql-general, starting at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg00669.php regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump ordering
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: I remember a while back you were saying you were working on pg_dump object ordering? What happened with that? Did you need some help with it? I don't remember that and I don't have any specific plans relating to that. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
[HACKERS] Yaarrgh! CVS remote buffer overflow
It's all over Slashdot: http://security.e-matters.de/advisories/012003.html -Doug ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] Yaarrgh! CVS remote buffer overflow
On 21 Jan 2003, Doug McNaught wrote: It's all over Slashdot: http://security.e-matters.de/advisories/012003.html That bit about 'This does not apply to :pserver: only' (probably slightly paraphrased) is very confusing. I gather from later on in the page that it means that the flaw only applies to the pserver method. -- Nigel J. Andrews ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
Mingw and mingw-ported tools ? That's a nice small and cozy unix-like envoronment on tom of Windows. Add it emacs, and windoww becomes almost tolerable ... Emmanuel Charpentier [ Back to lurking ... ] Brian Bruns wrote: Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Mingw and mingw-ported tools ? That's a nice small and cozy unix-like envoronment on tom of Windows. Add it emacs, and windoww becomes almost tolerable ... How good is the debugging support under mingW? Is it at least comparable to using gdb under unix? If not, you might find yourself all of the sudden out in cold ... Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Recent initdb error
Rod Taylor writes: setting privileges on built-in objects... ok creating information schema... sed: 1: s/^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.\([0 ...: undefined label 'L;s/.*//;q;: L;s/.*\(\)$/\1/' ok vacuuming database template1... ok Fixed. Consider filing a bug report with your operating system. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
-Original Message- From: Jan Wieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:04 PM To: Emmanuel Charpentier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Mingw and mingw-ported tools ? That's a nice small and cozy unix-like envoronment on tom of Windows. Add it emacs, and windoww becomes almost tolerable ... How good is the debugging support under mingW? Is it at least comparable to using gdb under unix? If not, you might find yourself all of the sudden out in cold ... GDB works fine. Some of the other tools don't work right (e.g. sed is broken). ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. Indeed. I think the goal here is to have a port that *runs* in native Windows; but I see no reason not to require Cygwin for *building* it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. Indeed. I think the goal here is to have a port that *runs* in native Windows; but I see no reason not to require Cygwin for *building* it. Agreed. We focused on porting the programs. The goal was to have PostgreSQL running native on Win32 for a user. Having a nice and easy maintainable cross platform config, build and test environment for the developers is definitely something that still needs to be done (hint, hint). Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. The problem is that when either side (unix developer or windows developer) wants to do anything that changes the build procedure, the other side breaks until someone makes the appropriate changes on the other build. Unless some committer is going to commit to looking over patches to dsp files and making makefile changes and vice versa or we were to require that anyone that wants to change build procedure must make both sets of changes, I'd think this is going to be a mess. And in the latter case, I think you're going to lose developers as well. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Al Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. You think we should drive away our existing unix developers in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it isn't going to happen. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Tom Lane wrote: Al Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. You think we should drive away our existing unix developers in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it isn't going to happen. A compromise is a solution that makes all sides equally unhappy ... so we should convert our build environment to ANT? Hey, just kidding ;-) Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?
Recommend always running initdb -W and setting all pg_hba entries to md5. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Treat Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:17 PM To: Dan Langille Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? I'm not sure how adequately these topics are covered elsewhere, but you should probably provide at least a pointer if not improved information: * Should have a mention of the pgcrypto code in contrib. * Brain hiccup, but isn't there some type of password datatype * Explanation of problems/solutions of using md5 passwords inside postgresql. this has tripped up a lot of people upgrading to 7.3 * possibly go into server resource issues and the pitfalls in giving free form sql access to just anyone. (Think unconstrained join on all tables in a database) hth, Robert Treat On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 00:01, Dan Langille wrote: With reference to my post to the PostgreSQL Password Cracker on 2003-01-02, I've promised to write a security document for the project. Here it is, Sunday night, and I can't sleep. What better way to get there than start this task... My plan is to write this in very simple HTML. I will post the draft document on my website and post the URL here from time to time for feedback. Please make suggestions for content. So far, I will cover these items: - .pgpass (see http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/libpq-files.html) - local connections - remote connections (recommending SSL) - pg_hba (only in passing, most of that is at http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?client-authentication.html) - running the postmaster as a specific user That doesn't sound like much. Surely you can think of something else to add. Should I post this to another list for their views? OK, that's done it. I'm ready for sleep now. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE AS/SELECT INTO
Why don't you just include them by default, otherwise if WITHOUT OIDS appears in the CREATE TABLE command, then don't include them ? Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2003 4:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [HACKERS] Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE AS/SELECT INTO We've gotten a couple of complaints now about the fact that 7.3 doesn't include an OID column in a table created via CREATE TABLE AS or SELECT INTO. Unless I hear objections, I'm going to revert it to including an OID, and back-patch the fix for 7.3.2 as well. See discussion a couple days ago on pgsql-general, starting at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg00669.php regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Brian Bruns wrote: Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Correct. I wonder why we need a Windows port. I think it is more pain than sense. In case of Windows I'd rely on a binary distribution and a piece of documentation telling how the source can be built. I don't expect many people to do it. Usually Open Source guys run *NIX Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. In case of SAP DB they use a tool kit for building http://www.sapdb.org/develop/sap_db_development.htm It is truly painful to build it - even on UNIX (I haven't tried on Windows and I won't try in the future). As far as I have seen it throughs millions of compiler warnings. Regards, Hans -- *Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig* Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75 www.postgresql.at http://www.postgresql.at, cluster.postgresql.at http://cluster.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at http://www.cybertec.at, kernel.cybertec.at http://kernel.cybertec.at ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
-Original Message- From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:54 PM To: Brian Bruns; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Brian Bruns wrote: Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Correct. I wonder why we need a Windows port. Maybe because most of the machines in the world (by a titanic landslide) are Windoze boxes. I think it is more pain than sense. In case of Windows I'd rely on a binary distribution and a piece of documentation telling how the source can be built. Sounds like a Windows port to me. How is this Windows build going to be created without a Windows port? I don't expect many people to do it. Usually Open Source guys run *NIX Taken a poll lately? Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. In case of SAP DB they use a tool kit for building http://www.sapdb.org/develop/sap_db_development.htm It is truly painful to build it - even on UNIX (I haven't tried on Windows and I won't try in the future). As far as I have seen it throughs millions of compiler warnings. It was simple to build. And if you don't want to build it, they have binary distributions. I have SAP/DB running on this machine (along with SQL*Server, PostgreSQL, DB/2, Oracle, Firebird and a few others) SAP DB is or can be used for SAP (basically, it's a port of Adabas). That makes it kind of important, for obvious reasons. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
Jan Wieck wrote: Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Mingw and mingw-ported tools ? That's a nice small and cozy unix-like envoronment on tom of Windows. Add it emacs, and windoww becomes almost tolerable ... How good is the debugging support under mingW? Is it at least comparable to using gdb under unix? If not, you might find yourself all of the sudden out in cold ... gdb has been ported to mingw. There even exist some interfaces to graphical IDEs (while I don't really care for that). Another point : this environment is 100% free. You don't have to use proprietary tools. This might be a point in some environments. Emmanuel Charpentier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
Dann Corbit wrote: [ ... ] GDB works fine. Some of the other tools don't work right (e.g. sed is broken). Recent fixes exist, but I didn't check all of them. WorksForMe(TM), but my projects are *much* simpler ... Emmanuel Charpentier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
