Re: [HACKERS] non-ipv6 vs hostnames
> On tis, 2011-08-16 at 16:17 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Well, I got this on a win64 build. It's *supposed* to have ipv6. I > > wonder if it breaks on windows just because there is no ipv6 address > > on the machine... > > It would mean that getaddrinfo() of "::1" failed. That seems weird. > A system admin can set registry keys to disable IPv6, either partially (allowing ::1), or totally (all IPv6 addresses fail). If the system has IPv6 enabled, it's not possible for there to be no ipv6 address. There is always the link-local address of each LAN adapter. -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
> On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> > >> On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know > of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and > works as expected. > >>> Uh, don't we have a psql built via MSVC? Doesn't it work interactively? > >> > >> Not if you want readline. And in my book that's a requirement of a psql > >> that's usable interactively. It's pretty horrible to use without it. > > Well, as horrible as other Windows apps. I will leave others to decide > > if that is usable. ;-) I am unclear if we would ship readline support > > on Windows even if we didn't have a license issue (no OS readline > > version on Windows). > > > > Windows developers almost universally work from GUIs and not using > console apps (and that's true of many Unix developers also, particularly > those who can't recall a time when X-Windows wasn't almost universally > available). Microsoft has de-emphasized console apps for 15 years. So > the only people who are likely to be interested in using an enhanced > psql on Windows are old Unix-heads like you and me. It's not worth a lot > of effort, IMNSHO. > > cheers > > andrew > I think this is wrong... There are plenty of people who use the command line in Windows, and Microsoft has been adding better support for this, including PowerShell and interfaces to every administrative operation from command line scripts. Psql on Windows is ugly... Readline does (supposedly) run on Windows, but no one has done the work to get it to happen. One of the problems with libedit is that it does not support Windows, as far as I know. I don't know of a good solution, given the license for readline. But it would sure be nice. -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
> charles.mcdev...@emc.com wrote: > > The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql, > > other > than making it GPL. > > Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many > > disagree > with their ability to force this). > > > > The "GNU people" are perfectly content with the license of PostgreSQL. > They are unhappy with the license terms of OpenSSL, which is fair > because they are ridiculous. Eric Young and the rest of the > contributors produced a useful piece of software, and made it considerly > less valuable to the world due to the ego trip terms: > http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html -- the worst specific problem > is the requirement to acknowledge OpenSSL use in advertising of projects > that use it. > > The PostgreSQL community has had similar issues with popular software > commonly used on top of PostgreSQL, that happened to use a non-standard > license with unique terms. It would be both hypocritical and incorrect > to now blame the GNU projects for taking a similar stand on this one. You are correct... I overreacted, after having run into problems in the past with GPL (vs LGPL) issues. My apologies to all for adding stupid distracting comments to this thread. It would be wonderful if the OpenSSL people would compromise on this, but I suppose that isn't possible. I'd love to see libedit get better, and would like to see that solution, because OpenSSL's FIPS compliance really helps with Federal customers, but I realize that involves a lot of effort. I hope if the PostgreSQL project goes down the path of switching to GnuTLS, OpenSSL remains an option (for the server side). -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
> -Original Message- > From: gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:14 PM > To: McDevitt, Charles > Cc: sfr...@snowman.net; alvhe...@commandprompt.com; > g...@2ndquadrant.com; mba...@debian.org; t...@sss.pgh.pa.us; > and...@dunslane.net; j...@commandprompt.com; pgsql- > hack...@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 12:07 AM, wrote: > >> This is just libelous FUD. There's absolutely no reason postgres would > >> have to be GPL'd to satisfy any library license. > > > > Ok, but be aware that readline is GPL v3, not GPL v2, and has those > > additional > requirements. > > No What? From the GNU Readline home page: "Readline is free software, distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 3." I know it used to be GPLv2, but that isn't true these days. -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
-Original Message- > From: gsst...@gmail.com [mailto:gsst...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Greg Stark > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:03 PM > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:06 PM, wrote: > > The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql, > > other > than making it GPL. > > Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many > > disagree > with their ability to force this). > > This is just libelous FUD. There's absolutely no reason postgres would > have to be GPL'd to satisfy any library license. Ok, but be aware that readline is GPL v3, not GPL v2, and has those additional requirements. -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
> * charles.mcdev...@emc.com (charles.mcdev...@emc.com) wrote: > > Don't forget that OpenSSL has a FIPS-140 compliant version, and FIPS-140 > compliance is essential to many Federal users. > > Essential? That's a bit much. Yes, it shows up on a FISMA review as an > open action item, but it's a risk that can both be accepted and > mitigated. I also thought FIPS-140 version required API changes.. > > > GnuTLS doesn't qualify. > > That should be "doesn't currently".. > Doesn't currently? Does that mean you know of a project to get FIPS certification for it? I don't. The current OpenSSL has a version that is (the only source-code-level FIPS-140 certification ever). And yes, it is API compatible with the non-FIPS one. It just doesn't support some of the algorithms that the other does. The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql, other than making it GPL. Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many disagree with their ability to force this). -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
If psql uses libreadline and libgnutls, does that mean psql will be distributed under the GPL in the future? Or Dual-licensed? If I read the readline license right, applications that link to it must be GPL. That's why we (EMC/Greenplum) switch to libedit, even though readline is nicer... We didn't want to ship part of our product as GPL -- 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] Debian readline/libedit breakage
Don't forget that OpenSSL has a FIPS-140 compliant version, and FIPS-140 compliance is essential to many Federal users. GnuTLS doesn't qualify. -- 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] Why don't we accept exponential format for integers?
> > And so does: > > SELECT 1.23e+01::Integer > > > > > >> > which I find just as dangerous as > >> > SELECT '1.234e+01'::Integer; > > > > Add quotes to either of the other two, and then they don't work either. > > Well, that's stupidly arbitrary. If we're not going to accept > '1.234e+01'::Integer, then we shouldn't accept 1.234e+01::Integer either. > Isn't this a case of an explicit cast? Shouldn't our answer to 1.234e+1::Integer be the same as CAST(1234e+1 AS Integer)? Which is legal ISO SQL, as far as I can see. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
