Hi Tom,
after beeing offline because of a chrashed box, I able to mail again.
I would like to volunteer for the uptime() function. Is that OK?
cheers,
Matthias
Am 13.12.2004 um 03:31 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
Am 07.12.2004 um 19:24 schrieb Tom Lane:
Matthias Schmidt [EMAIL
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have been working on the patch and it seems now it works as I
originally intended it to: dropping users or tablespaces is disallowed
unless they own or contain no object. ACL's are not tracked; I'm still
unsure if they should be.
If we fail to track
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I had thought that maybe we shouldn't track dependencies on the first
superuser, on the assumption that it cannot be dropped. I'm not sure
if this is entirely true however.
Well, there are certainly nontrivial provisions for recovering
installations where it has been
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:27:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Hi,
So if Alvaro's thing works out, the shared-sequence problem becomes moot.
Probably that's a good reason not to spend time on it just yet.
I'm still alive, and I've been following this thread. Sorry for not
giving an update.
I
Am 07.12.2004 um 19:24 schrieb Tom Lane:
Matthias Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way: Do you have an idea about a small or
medium sized task from the TODO-List for a newbee, which gets me up to
speed?(!Win32)
A lot of the tasks listed under DATA TYPES are fairly self-contained
problems
Matthias Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way: Do you have an idea about a small or
medium sized task from the TODO-List for a newbee, which gets me up to
speed?(!Win32)
A lot of the tasks listed under DATA TYPES are fairly self-contained
problems ... but what draws your interest? I
Am 06.12.2004 um 23:27 schrieb Tom Lane:
schmidtm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do I get that right: the only reason to do max(sysid) or a
user-supplied ID in CreateUser() (commands/user.c) is that we don't
have the ability to get sequences over the *.BKI/initdb mechanism?
No, that's not quite the
Hi Tom + *,
Am 03.12.2004 um 23:58 schrieb Tom Lane:
schmidtm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is somebody working on these two issues on the TODO-List?
1) Prevent default re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
I don't know of anyone actively working on it, but if you check the
archives you'll
schmidtm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do I get that right: the only reason to do max(sysid) or a
user-supplied ID in CreateUser() (commands/user.c) is that we don't
have the ability to get sequences over the *.BKI/initdb mechanism?
No, that's not quite the direction of the problem. The real
--- Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
schmidtm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is somebody working on these two issues on the TODO-List?
1) Prevent default re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
I don't know of anyone actively working on it, but if you check the
archives you'll find
Hi *,
is somebody working on these two issues on the TODO-List?
1) Prevent default re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
Currently, if a user is removed while he still owns objects, a new
user given might be
given their user id and inherit the previous users objects.
2) Prevent
schmidtm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
is somebody working on these two issues on the TODO-List?
1) Prevent default re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups
I don't know of anyone actively working on it, but if you check the
archives you'll find that the preferred solution approach is pretty
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
No one has any idea how to do this reasonably --- the problem is you
have no visibility into databases other than the one you're connected
to, so you can't tell what the user owns in other databases.
What about Alvaro's
13 matches
Mail list logo
