Re: [HACKERS] ALTER USER

2003-03-16 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 22:38:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hackers, One can alter a user to set a validity timestamp. However, unless one uses the ugly kludge of setting a date very far into the future, there's no way to set this validity forever. There is an

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol? I'm still leaning that way on the grounds of compactness and programming simplicity, but I can see where someone might want to

Re: [HACKERS] Error message style guide

2003-03-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: I think a style guide should just say Keep primary messages short. Right. How about something like Avoid tabs. Insert newlines as needed to keep message lines shorter than X characters. Keep in mind that client code might reformat long messages for its own purposes, so

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER USER

2003-03-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 07:37:26AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 22:38:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hackers, One can alter a user to set a validity timestamp. However, unless one uses the ugly kludge of setting a date very far into the

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER USER

2003-03-16 Thread Rod Taylor
I see now that one can use this syntax to make a user valid forever, though it is different than setting the value to NULL (as is when the user hasn't got a validity defined). This should be mentioned in the docs, I think. It may be worth while to change the default for valuntil to be

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER USER

2003-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It may be worth while to change the default for valuntil to be 'infinity'. NULL implies they will expire, we're just not sure when. This is not the only place in the system catalogs where NULL is effectively used to mean a default value that could also be

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure

2003-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane writes: Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol? There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for each of these

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER USER

2003-03-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 12:36:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I'm inclined to leave the code alone. But Alvaro is right that it'd be good to point out the 'infinity' option in the CREATE USER and ALTER USER man pages. (Doc patch please?) Attached. (Please correct if it's not good english.) --

Re: [HACKERS] Error message style guide

2003-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would prefer leaving the formatting to client and have the backend provide a more semantic-type markup. For example the newline character could be considered a paragraph break and within the paragraph the text just flows. (We could hack up some

Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

2003-03-16 Thread Hannu Krosing
Tom Lane kirjutas R, 14.03.2003 kell 19:15: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, just to throw out a wild idea: If you're talking about making large changes to the on-the-wire protocol. Have you considered using an existing database protocol? Yeah, I have. Didn't look promising ---

[HACKERS] help? trouble setting Shared Memory parameters in OSX kernel (fwd)

2003-03-16 Thread R Blake
hi all, tried this on pgsql-admin darwin-kernel lists, and unfortunately, not a 'nibble' ... can ne1 here spare a moment? thanks! richard -- Forwarded Message -- hi all, i've successfully built postgreSQL 7.3.2-STABLE on Mac OSX 10.2.4. much trouble launching it led me to