Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Vik Fearing writes: > Okay, here is version two of the refactoring patch that documents that > the with-space version is deprecated but still accepted. > The feature patch is not affected by this and so I am not attaching a > new version of that. I've committed this without the changes to expose

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

2014-06-29 21:09 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Vik Fearing writes: > > On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT > >> instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough > >> for breaking compatibility? > >

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Vik Fearing writes: > On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT >> instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough >> for breaking compatibility? > How is compatibility broken? The grammar still ac

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 06/23/2014 06:45 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > 2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing >: > > On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule > mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> I found

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >>> I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property >>> CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used "CONNECTION LIMIT" in

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing : > On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property > >> CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used "CONNECTION LIMIT" in > >> docum

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: >> I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property >> CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used "CONNECTION LIMIT" in >> documentation. But "CONNECTION LIMIT" is still supported

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property > CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used "CONNECTION LIMIT" in > documentation. But "CONNECTION LIMIT" is still supported, but it is not > documented. So for some readers i

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Hello I returned to review this patch after sleeping - and I have to say, these patches doesn't break a compatibility. This feature has two patches: createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1-1.patch and database_attributes.v2-1.patch. First patch do some cleaning in gram rules a CREATE DATABASE and

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

2014-06-21 23:14 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing : > On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Hello > > > > I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com > > Thank you for looking at this. > > > Is any reason or is

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 06/21/2014 10:21 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Second question related to second patch: > > Must be new syntax ALLOW_CONNECTIONS? It doesn't *have* to be called that, but that's what the corresponding column in pg_database is called so why add confusion? (Actually, it's called datallowconn but

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello > > I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com Thank you for looking at this. > Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT > instead

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Second question related to second patch: Must be new syntax ALLOW_CONNECTIONS? Should not be (ENABLE | DISABLE) CONNECTION ? This doesn't need any new keyword. Regards Pavel 2014-06-21 22:11 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hello > > I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch > >

[HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Hello I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough for breaking compatibilit

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 05/26/2014 08:19 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 05/26/2014 07:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >>> I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such >>> database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to >>> prevent a race is worth

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 05/26/2014 07:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such >> database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to >> prevent a race is worth its keep. > +1 on the nannyism, and +1 to ignori

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such > database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to > prevent a race is worth its keep. +1 on the nannyism, and +1 to ignoring the race. Thanks, Step

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Jim Nasby writes: > On 5/24/14, 8:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Perhaps it'd be wise to have a safety check to disallow turning off >> datallowconn for the last connectable database? Although it couldn't be >> bulletproof due to race conditions, so maybe that'd just be nannyism. > BTW, I think the r

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 5/24/14, 8:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Vik Fearing writes: >On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>Which lead us to the question: you need to connect to the database to >>modify it, don't you? then, how do you change ALLOW CONNECTIONS to >>true? >You can ALTER DATABASE from anywhere.

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

Vik Fearing writes: > On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> Which lead us to the question: you need to connect to the database to >> modify it, don't you? then, how do you change ALLOW CONNECTIONS to >> true? > You can ALTER DATABASE from anywhere. Perhaps it'd be wise to have a safet

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >>> It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if >>> there are existing connections or terminate said connections.

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if >> there are existing connections or terminate said connections. I don't >> agree with that because there is no harm in conn

Re: [HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > > It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if > there are existing connections or terminate said connections. I don't > agree with that because there is no harm in connecting to a template > database (how else do you

[HACKERS] SQL access to database attributes

We try to tell our clients not to update the catalogs directly, but there are at least two instances where it's not possible to do otherwise (pg_database.datistemplate and .datallowconn). This patch aims to remedy that. For example, it is now possible to say ALTER DATABASE d ALLOW CONNECTIONS