I have views that use the dblink(connStr text, sql text) call. They cannot
use a two-step process. So postgres 9.0 has broken all of those views. Is
there a straightforward solution to this?
--
View this message in context:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:01, queej d...@authentrics.com wrote:
I have views that use the dblink(connStr text, sql text) call. They cannot
use a two-step process. So postgres 9.0 has broken all of those views. Is
there a straightforward solution to this?
Could you explain your views? I
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:21, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In any case I don't see an argument why warning on connection creation
isn't sufficient.
I'll check all versions of dblink. truncate_identifier() will be called
with warn=false in all cases except dblink_coneect() -
This bug report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-11/msg00139.php
shows that this patch was ill-considered:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-06/msg00013.php
and this later attempt didn't fix it, because it still misbehaves in
HEAD:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This bug report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-11/msg00139.php
shows that this patch was ill-considered:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-06/msg00013.php
and this later attempt didn't fix
Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:27, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm inclined to think that we should just change all the
truncate_identifier calls to warn=false, and forget about providing
identifier-truncated warnings here. Â It's too
On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Itagaki Takahiroitagaki.takah...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:27, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'm inclined to think that we should just change all the
truncate_identifier calls to warn=false, and forget about providing
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps a reasonable compromise is to issue the truncation warnings when
an overlength name is being *entered* into the connection table, but not
for simple lookups.
Can't we distinguish a name from a conninfo
On 11/22/2010 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps a reasonable compromise is to issue the truncation warnings when
an overlength name is being *entered* into the connection table, but not
for simple lookups.
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/22/2010 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
No, because = isn't disallowed in names ...
Ok, true, but it still might not be a bad heuristic to use for issuing a
warning on lookup.
The fine manual says that using = in a connection name might be unwise
On 11/22/2010 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/22/2010 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
No, because = isn't disallowed in names ...
Ok, true, but it still might not be a bad heuristic to use for issuing a
warning on lookup.
The fine manual says that using
11 matches
Mail list logo
