Re: [HACKERS] What Would You Like To Do?
On 09/13/2011 03:51 PM, Michael Nolan wrote: For example: A fully integrated ability to query across multiple databases,possibly on multiple servers, something Oracle has had for nearly two decades. That isn't the approach to take. The fact that Oracle has it is not a guarantee that it is useful or good. If you need to query across databases (assuming within the same cluster) then you designed your database wrong and should have used our SCHEMA support (what Oracle calls Namespaces) instead. This is the difference between developers and real world users. Real world users may not have the ability, time or resources to redesign their databases just because that's the 'best' way to do something. Will it be the most efficient way to do it? Almost certainly not. I've been involved in a few corporate mergers, and there was a short term need to do queries on the combined databases while the tiger team handling the IT restructuring figured out how (or whether) to merge the dabases together. (One of these happened to be an Oracle/Oracle situation, it was a piece of cake even though the two data centers were 750 miles apart and the table structures had almost nothing in common. Another was a two week headache, the third was even worse!) In a perfect world, it would be nice if one could do combined queries linking a PostgreSQL database with an Oracle one, or a MySQL one, too. Because sometimes, that's what you gotta do. Even something that is several hundred times slower is going to be faster than merging the databases together. When I do this today, I have to write a program (in perl or php) that accesses both databases and merges it by hand. Can't you do that with FDW that is present in 9.1? Check http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign_data_wrappers
Re: [HACKERS] What Would You Like To Do?
On 09/13/2011 04:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Rodrigo Gonzalezrjgonz...@estrads.com.ar writes: In a perfect world, it would be nice if one could do combined queries linking a PostgreSQL database with an Oracle one, or a MySQL one, Can't you do that with FDW that is present in 9.1? FDW provides the structure within which that will eventually be possible, but there's no Oracle or MySQL wrapper today ... and there are a lot of FDW restrictions that need to be worked on, too. regards, tom lane They are both listed at wiki I know there are a lot of limitationsbut OP message says Even something that is several hundred times slower is going to be faster than merging the databases together. When I do this today, I have to write a program (in perl or php) that accesses both databases and merges it by hand. Am I wrong that this is currently possible using FDW? Thanks Rodrigo Gonzalez -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Bad error message on valuntil
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:07:21 -0700 Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote: On 06/07/2013 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes: On 06/07/2013 11:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I think it's intentional that we don't tell the *client* that level of detail. Why? That seems rather silly. The general policy on authentication failure reports is that we don't tell the client anything it doesn't know already about what the auth method is. We can log additional info into the postmaster log if it seems useful to do so, but the more you tell a client, the more you risk undesirable info leakage to a bad guy. As an example here, reporting the valuntil condition would be acking to an attacker that he had the right password. So security by obscurity? Alright, without getting into that argument how about we change the error message to: FATAL: Authentication failed: Check server log for specifics And then we make sure we log proper info? +1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? a) not at all b) in a single block titled Reviewers for this version at the bottom. c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are doneI mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result in the removal of all names from features. Let's fix the way that release notes are done A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. I agree, but cost-benefit is what we should see here not just cost -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? a) not at all b) in a single block titled Reviewers for this version at the bottom. c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are doneI mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note format. Well... Checking release notes for 9.2.4 you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches (Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi) What about (it people think that it is good) a second () with reviewed by someone -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Disabling ALTER SYSTEM SET WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:53:01 -0400 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The other issue is that currently you can only edit a server's config if you are logged in to it. If we permit SQL-level access to that, and somebody who doesn't have access to edit the files blocks themselves out, there is no way for them to get a working system *at all*. This is not a valid point, at least for mebasically all OSs should disable any change to firewall if you are connected remotely cause you can block yourselfgiving power to users does not mean being their babysitterwe should smart enough to use the power we receive...if we are not smart...we should start thinking about other profession And excuse my English, I hope the point is clear... Best regards Rodrigo Gonzalez -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] enabling nestedloop and disabling hashjon
On 12/2/15 18:29, Tom Lane wrote: Ravi Kiran ravi.kolanp...@gmail.com writes: I am sorry for the late reply, when I disabled the hash join command enable_hashjoin=off in the postgresql.conf file, it was not working. But I when I used the command set enable_hashjoin=off command in the back end. It worked. I am not able to understand why it did not get disabled when I changed it in the postgresql file. The two plausible explanations for that are (1) you didn't do a reload or (2) you forgot to remove the '#' comment marker in the file's entry. Or you changed the wrong postgresql.conf file Regards Rodrigo Gonzalez -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
