Re: [HACKERS] WAL replay logic (was Re: [PERFORM] Mount options for Ext3?)

2003-01-25 Thread Curt Sampson
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote: We'd have to take it on faith that we should replay the visible files in their name order. Couldn't you could just put timestamp information at the beginning if each file, (or perhaps use that of the first transaction), and read the beginning of each file

Re: [HACKERS] WAL replay logic (was Re: [PERFORM] Mount options for Ext3?)

2003-01-25 Thread Kevin Brown
Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One question I have is: in the event of a crash, why not simply replay all the transactions found in the WAL? Is the startup time of the database that badly affected if pg_control is ignored? Interesting thought, indeed. Since we

Re: [HACKERS] WAL replay logic (was Re: [PERFORM] Mount options for Ext3?)

2003-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote: We'd have to take it on faith that we should replay the visible files in their name order. Couldn't you could just put timestamp information at the beginning if each file, Good thought --- there's already an

[HACKERS] interactive docs error

2003-01-25 Thread Dave Cramer
Warning: pg_connect() unable to connect to PostgreSQL server: FATAL 1: Sorry, too many clients already in /usr/local/www/www.postgresql.org/idocs/opendb.php on line 3 Unable to access database -- Dave Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cramer Consulting ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] copying perms to another user

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Add group object ownership, so groups can rename/drop/grant on objects, so we can implement roles --- Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: I think the one missing item mentioned was for

Re: [HACKERS] IPv6 patch

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, at your suggestion, IPv6 addresses will appear in pg_hba.conf, even if we don't support IPv6. However, the server log messages stating an IPv6 socket was not made is only printed if the binary supports IPv6. The message seems to be a compromise between those who wanted a separate IPv6

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 22:47, Justin Clift wrote: Over the last few days we've had patches submitted for 7.2.3 that address a couple of things, both the WAL Recovery Bug that Tom has developed a patch for, and a couple of buffer overflows that have been widely

Re: [HACKERS] Survey results from the PostgreSQL portal page

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Michael Meskes wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:19:03PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote: pretty wide feature set (as good as any other open source rdbms afaik) plus it's open source, so if we don't have a feature that say oracle has, you can pay someone the $10,000+ the oracle license will cost

Re: [HACKERS] unquoted special constants

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Looks like you got them all. I assume you got those from gram.y. --- Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Hi, Is this the complete list of constants that must not be quoted? CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_DATE

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Lamar Owen
On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote: improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them when the other eight are still open? Yes. It depends upon which street the door faces. See

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote: improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them when the other eight are still open? Yes. It depends upon which street

[HACKERS] Have a PG 7.3.1 Windows (cygwin) easy installer... now what to dowith it?

2003-01-25 Thread Justin Clift
Hi everyone, Mark (mlw) put together a PostgreSQL installer for Windows (cygwin version) a little while ago, but he hasn't been responding to requests for feedback regarding it (probably busy). As we're going to be releasing a native Windows version of PostgreSQL 7.4 in a few months, it seems

Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Treat wrote: I'm not sure how adequately these topics are covered elsewhere, but you should probably provide at least a pointer if not improved information: * Should have a mention of the pgcrypto code in contrib. * Brain hiccup, but isn't there some type of password datatype It is

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] Have a PG 7.3.1 Windows (cygwin) easy installer... now

2003-01-25 Thread mlw
Sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding. What were you looking for? I used inno setup as well. If you want I can send my install script. I thought I was being very forth coming. I even help out on the Windows PG console window. Justin Clift wrote: Hi everyone, Mark (mlw) put together

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] Have a PG 7.3.1 Windows (cygwin) easy installer... now

2003-01-25 Thread Justin Clift
mlw wrote: Sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding. What were you looking for? Sorry Mark, I just thought you were busy. Was wondering if you were going to make a project of it somewhere, so we can get things together and have a really decent release for Windows when 7.4 comes out. :)

Re: [HACKERS] default to WITHOUT OIDS? Possible related problem

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Daniel Kalchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If ever this happens, same should be considered for tables created via the SELECT INTO statement. These are in many cases 'temporary' in nature and do not need OIDs (while making much use of the OIDs

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Lamar Owen
On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote: improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two of them when the

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday 25 January 2003 21:06, Bruce Momjian wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday 25 January 2003 20:36, Bruce Momjian wrote: improve the capabilities of the database. For security issues, if we already have ten open doors in a house, does it help to lock two

[HACKERS] domain check constraint syntax problem for 7.4

2003-01-25 Thread Bruno Wolff III
I am trying to create a domain with more than one check constraint and I am getting an error that I don't think is correct according to the documentation. I am not sure if this is a limitation of a partially implemented feature or a bug that has so far been overlooked. For example: area=# create

Re: [HACKERS] domain check constraint syntax problem for 7.4

2003-01-25 Thread Rod Taylor
They work the same as table constraints with in-line declaration (no comma). On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 00:09, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I am trying to create a domain with more than one check constraint and I am getting an error that I don't think is correct according to the documentation. I am not

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. Indeed. I think the goal here is

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X? There's the order-of-operations-in-checkpoint problem, and there's one variant of the no one parent tuple was found problem that should have been patched in 7.2.3, but was overlooked. Also, the

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about: EXPLICIT_JOIN_MINIMUM and FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT I've implemented this using FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT and JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMIT as the variable names. It'd be easy enough to change if someone comes up with better names. You can read updated

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Agreed. How do we get the patches in there, or are they there already? --- Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, do we have non-security fixes to warrant a 7.2.X? There's the

Re: [HACKERS] Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4?

2003-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed. How do we get the patches in there, or are they there already? We patch ;-). I've been working on it the past few days. Not quite done, but close. regards, tom lane ---(end of