On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I did an audio interview today, and it is online now:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/02/bsdtalk015-interview-with-postgresql.html
Great interview. You hit a lot of the high points :)
You mentioned in-place upgrade scripts.
Well, I've tested it a bit:
db=# select version();
version
PostgreSQL 8.1.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.3.5
(Debian 1:3.3.5-13)
(1 row)
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:38:59AM +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
Well, I've tested it a bit:
db=# select version();
version
PostgreSQL 8.1.2 on
What do you find difficult about the current method? That's got to be
the first discussion point.
The main problem I have is the complexity of setup.
It involves a lot of additional scripting which you have to get it right
to be actually reliable. The documentation is giving a rough idea on
I have private tables such as this (Very simplified):
CREATE TABLE private.t_foo (
...
);
REVOKE ALL ON private.t_foo FROM public;
Different users have access to different data in the table, so I do
this view:
CREATE VIEW foo AS
SELECT * FROM private.t_foo WHERE private.haveaccess();
GRANT
The function private.haveaccess()'s result depends on the currently logged
in user, is it still possible to create an expression index over that
function?
// Fredrik Olsson
Hello,
All functions and operators used in an index definition must be immutable,
that is, their results must
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-02-08 kell 12:26, kirjutas Fredrik Olsson:
I have private tables such as this (Very simplified):
CREATE TABLE private.t_foo (
...
);
REVOKE ALL ON private.t_foo FROM public;
Different users have access to different data in the table, so I do
this view:
On 2/7/06 1:19 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Rawnsley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO the #1 priority in the current PITR/WAL shipping system is to make the
standby able to tolerate being shut down and restarted, i.e. actually having
a true standby mode and not the current
Hello,
Is there not some other alternative to pg_hba.conf?
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
With pg_hba.conf that is not possible, as they just change all
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 14:34 +0200, Q Beukes wrote:
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
As they have access to whole filesystem, they can access
I think this was discussed many times on this list, and the main
conclusion was: if you don't trust your DB machine's admin, any security
measure against him will be only illusory. The sysadmin can in any case
access the data, you can just make this harder, you can't prevent that.
So you better
* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote:
It's in CVS HEAD, not 8.1
It seems to me that (x,y) (a,b) means (x a AND y b) ... which is
not exactly what you wanted... or I'm missing something ?
Yes, it changed because someone pointed out that the behaviour in 8.1
was wrong.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Q Beukes wrote:
Is there not some other alternative to pg_hba.conf?
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
With
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:49:32AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote:
It's in CVS HEAD, not 8.1
It seems to me that (x,y) (a,b) means (x a AND y b) ... which is
not exactly what you wanted... or I'm missing something ?
Yes, it
Hi,
I develop under Delphi7(Build 8.1) pgexpress 4.01
and postgreSQL 8.1.2
OS is windows XP Professional or Windows 2003
Server.
In my project i use dbexpress components
TSQLConnection, TSQLQuery - TDataSetProvider -
TClientDataSet.
In some situations when the TClientDataSet excute
action
Hello,
Is there not some other alternative to pg_hba.conf?
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
If they have full access, then they have FULL access.
Q Beukes wrote:
Hello,
Is there not some other alternative to pg_hba.conf?
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
With pg_hba.conf that is not possible, as
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I did an audio interview today, and it is online now:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/02/bsdtalk015-interview-with-postgresql.html
Great interview. You hit a lot of the high points :)
You
Q Beukes wrote:
Hello,
Is there not some other alternative to pg_hba.conf?
I have the problem where the system administrators at our company
obviously have access to the whole filesystem, and our database records
needs to be hidden even from them.
With pg_hba.conf that is not possible, as
It looks like all buildfarm members are failing this morning...
Here is an example.
-rocco
-Original Message-
From: PG Build Farm
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PGBuildfarm member asp Branch
Well,
I am not looking for 100% security. I know that full access if full access,
and that even if you were to encrypt the system through Postgre the
determined
person WILL always be able to get it out if they have system level access.
All I wanted to do was to prevent the basic SQL/Linux
Q Beukes wrote:
Well,
I am not looking for 100% security. I know that full access if full access,
and that even if you were to encrypt the system through Postgre the
determined
person WILL always be able to get it out if they have system level access.
All I wanted to do was to prevent the
Q Beukes schrieb:
Well,
I am not looking for 100% security. I know that full access if full access,
and that even if you were to encrypt the system through Postgre the
determined
person WILL always be able to get it out if they have system level access.
All I wanted to do was to prevent the
* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:49:32AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Sounds like a bug, will it be in 8.1.3 or do we have to wait till 8.2
for it? Sounds very interesting indeed...
Well, the bug is really that we accept the syntax but do the
Hi
I am trying to add a new catalog to the system. I had followed the
instructions in the comments. Now I can see the definition of the new
catalog table and its index in file postgres.bki after doing make.
However, initdb still did not create the new catalog table. From the
debug information
andrew wrote:
I am trying to add a new catalog to the system. I had followed the
instructions in the comments. Now I can see the definition of the new
catalog table and its index in file postgres.bki after doing make.
However, initdb still did not create the new catalog table. From the
Fredrik Olsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CREATE VIEW foo AS
SELECT * FROM private.t_foo WHERE private.haveaccess();
GRANT ALL ON foo TO public;
If the function is parameterless as you show, what is it accomplishing
that could not be done with grant/revoke on the view?
If it is not
The core committee has agreed that it's about time for a new set of
update releases (8.1.3, 8.0.7, etc). Barring surprises, we'll wrap
Sunday evening with expectation of general announcement Tuesday.
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
regards, tom lane
On 2/8/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for the record, it's not the row constructor stuff that just got
fixed, it's row-value comparison. We were able to construct rows
correctly before, but we didn't compare them in the correct column-
by-column fashion. Please call it by the
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:43:48AM -0500, Rocco Altier wrote:
It looks like all buildfarm members are failing this morning...
Here is an example.
Looks like someone did something silly in the bison file for ecpg. It's
complaining about an undeclared yydebug...
--
Martijn van Oosterhout
oh, my mistake. I only do make install-bin. Now it is successfully
created. Thanks.
On 2/8/06, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andrew wrote:
I am trying to add a new catalog to the system. I had followed the
instructions in the comments. Now I can see the definition of the new
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The core committee has agreed that it's about time for a new set of
update releases (8.1.3, 8.0.7, etc). Barring surprises, we'll wrap
Sunday evening with expectation of general announcement Tuesday.
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:28 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'd really like to see the multiple DB connections with different
Kerberos credentials go in to 8.1.3. It solved the problem we were
having authenticating to PostgreSQL using Kerberos from Apache. We were
also able to get
* Devrim GUNDUZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:28 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'd really like to see the multiple DB connections with different
Kerberos credentials go in to 8.1.3. It solved the problem we were
having authenticating to PostgreSQL using Kerberos from
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
I'd really like to see the multiple DB connections with different
Kerberos credentials go in to 8.1.3.
That's a new feature, not a bug fix. I'd be against
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
I'd really like to see the multiple DB connections with different
Kerberos credentials go in to 8.1.3.
That's a new
* Devrim GUNDUZ ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[OT]
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
[/OT]
And it's days like these that make me happy to be running Debian. My
The core committee has agreed that it's about time for a new
set of update releases (8.1.3, 8.0.7, etc). Barring
surprises, we'll wrap Sunday evening with expectation of
general announcement Tuesday.
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
I'd like to see the bugfix part of
Hi,
I develop under Delphi7(Build 8.1) pgexpress 4.01 and postgreSQL 8.1.2
OS is windows XP Professional or Windows 2003 Server.
In my project i use dbexpress components TSQLConnection, TSQLQuery -
TDataSetProvider - TClientDataSet.
In some situations when the TClientDataSet excute action
[OT]
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
[/OT]
This is not a Debian thing. Lots of distributions do it. I wouldn't be
surprised
if RedHat did it as well.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
The core committee has agreed that it's about time for a new set of
update releases (8.1.3, 8.0.7, etc). Barring surprises, we'll wrap
Sunday evening with expectation of general announcement Tuesday.
Any pending patches out there for the back branches?
* Joshua D. Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[OT]
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
[/OT]
This is not a Debian thing. Lots of distributions do it. I
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:00:46AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You mentioned in-place upgrade scripts. Are those in contrib/
somewhere? On GBorg? On PgFoundry? If not, could you put them
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:00:46AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You mentioned in-place upgrade scripts. Are those in contrib/
somewhere? On GBorg? On PgFoundry? If not, could you
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:36:10PM +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:28 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
I'd really like to see the multiple DB connections with different
Kerberos credentials go in to 8.1.3. It solved the problem we were
having authenticating to PostgreSQL
On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I did an audio interview today, and it is online now:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/02/bsdtalk015-interview-with-
postgresql.html
Great interview. You
Andrew,
This would be a very fine project for someone to pick up (maybe one of
the corporate supporters could sponsor someone to work on it?)
We looked at it for Greenplum but just couldn't justify putting it near
the top of the priority list. The work/payoff ratio is terrible.
One
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:55 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
One justification for in-place upgrades is to be faster than
dump/reload. However, if we're assuming the possibility of new/modified
header fields which could then cause page splits on pages which are 90%
capacity, then this time
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Andrew,
This would be a very fine project for someone to pick up (maybe
one of the corporate supporters could sponsor someone to work on it?)
We looked at it for Greenplum but just couldn't justify putting it
near the top of the priority
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
This would be a very fine project for someone to pick up (maybe one of
the corporate supporters could sponsor someone to work on it?)
We looked at it for Greenplum but just couldn't justify putting it near
the top of the priority list. The work/payoff
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-02-08 kell 15:51, kirjutas Tom Lane:
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
This would be a very fine project for someone to pick up (maybe one of
the corporate supporters could sponsor someone to work on it?)
We looked at it for Greenplum but just couldn't
Tom,
If such a tool were available, I don't think it'd be hard to get
consensus on organizing our releases so that it were applicable more
often than not. We could postpone changes that would affect user
table contents until we'd built up a backlog that would all go into
one release. Even
zeos was better than dbexpress with postgresql and mysql in my test
applications...connections were several seconds faster with zeos
Gustavo.
2006/2/8, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I develop under Delphi7(Build 8.1) pgexpress 4.01 and postgreSQL 8.1.2
OS is windows XP Professional
[OT]
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
[/OT]
And it's days like these that make me happy to be running Debian. My
thanks go to Martin for his excellent work.
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:36:10PM +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
I consider it
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
I think the other important thing to consider is that this patch went
into debian's unstable branch,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2006-02/msg00084.php
reports a problem with default btree operator classes that are
not in pg_catalog: you can create a UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY constraint
that depends on such an opclass, but then when you pg_dump and
try to reload, you get something like
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[OT]
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
that is not in the core.
[/OT]
And it's days like these that make me happy to be running
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:36:10PM +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
So Debian has a patch that is not in 8.1.2? I can't believe that they
are doing that -- personally I'm against to add any patch into binaries
Kris Jurka wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
The core committee has agreed that it's about time for a new set of
update releases (8.1.3, 8.0.7, etc). Barring surprises, we'll wrap
Sunday evening with expectation of general announcement Tuesday.
Any pending patches out
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:00:46AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:43:40PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
You mentioned in-place upgrade scripts. Are those in contrib/
somewhere? On GBorg? On PgFoundry? If not, could
61 matches
Mail list logo
