round ones) to rewrite the functionality as libraries and
> > refactor pg_dump/pg_restore to use only calls to same. As usual, it's
> > less about writing the code and more about the enormous amount of
> > testing any such a refactor would entail.
>
> My understanding as wel
7;
, '{
"table_name": "my_table"
, "cols": [
{ "def": "t text" }
, { "def": "i int" }
]
}'
);
--
Jon Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Done. Attached.
- --
Jon T Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
PostgreSQL Zealot
On 01/22/2013 11:17 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jon Erdman
> wrote:
>
> Updated the patch in commitfest with the doc change,
reSQL Zealot
On 01/20/2013 08:27 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/19/2013 11:54 PM, Jon Erdman wrote:
>> I did realize that since I moved it to + the doc should change,
>> but I didn't address that. I'll get on it this weekend.
> Held as waiting on aut
(312) 285-6735
Progressive Practice, Inc. j...@progressivepractice.com
P.O. Box 17288 www.progressivepractice.com
Rochester, NY 14617
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>&g
Oops! Here it is in the proper diff format. I didn't have my env set up
correctly :(
describe.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Jon T Erdman
Postgresql Zealot
On Nov 9, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jon Erdman wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Hel
On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2012/10/27 Jon Erdman :
>>
>> Hello Hackers!
>>
>> So, currently the only way to see if a function is security definer or not
>> is to directly query pg_proc. This is both irritating,
Hello Hackers!
So, currently the only way to see if a function is security definer or not is
to directly query pg_proc. This is both irritating, and I think perhaps
dangerous since security definer functions can be so powerful. I thought that
rectifying that would make an excellent first patc
So...
Came across a situation today where I would have liked to know the
effective role of a query because of a permission error. When I went to
add that to the logline_prefix, I realized that right now all we have is
%u which gives you the equivalent of session_user...I think it would be
useful
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So...
Came across a situation today where I would have liked to know the
effective role of a query because of a permission error. When I went to
add that to the logline_prefix, I realized that right now all we have is
%u which gives you the equivalen
10 matches
Mail list logo
