Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-24 Thread scott.marlowe
I have to say that during beta testing I ALWAYS do an initdb and a reload just to make sure the pg_dumpall and pg_restore stuff works right. Plus to make sure problems that might only pop up with a new initdb are found as well. I probably "burn it to the ground" several times on a single bet

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Vince Vielhaber
Can I buy an extra day or two? I'm in DC till Saturday then there's the trip home. How 'bout a wednesday beta release? On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ... I'm going to do up a beta2

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: > Yeah, we should do something with that. Are people okay with the idea > of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE > to the correct thing? >

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane writes: > >> Yeah, we should do something with that. Are people okay with the idea > >> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE > >> to the correct thing? > > > Seems like an appropriate ti

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Yeah, we should do something with that. Are people okay with the idea >> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE >> to the correct thing? > Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though.

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Yeah, we should do something with that. Are people okay with the idea > of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE > to the correct thing? Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICS, getting SIMILAR TO to operate per spec would require adding some > sort of translation function that converts the spec-style pattern into > a Posix pattern that our regex match engine would handle. This would at > least require adding ^ and $ around the pattern, converti

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Right, so you have two telling you to remove it, one telling you to add > it, and two that are discussion why/if it *should* be added ... Tom feels > it should be added, and I'm clarifing the why of it ... don't re-add it > until we've determined *

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Who implemented SIMILAR TO in the first place? Thomas. He put in the syntax, but as it stands it's simply syntactic sugar for ~ --- that is, our Posix-compatible regex match operator. Since the spec demands very non-Posix behavior, this is wrong.

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Looking at the open item list, I see: > fix up function return types on lang/type/trigger creation or > loosen opaque restrictions > Seems that should be fixed before beta2 because it does effect people > loading data. Yeah, we should

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-19 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > It is an open issue. It has to be resolved. When it is, I will remove > > > it. I added a question mark to it but it needs to be tracked. I keep > > > having to add

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > It is an open issue. It has to be resolved. When it is, I will remove > > it. I added a question mark to it but it needs to be tracked. I keep > > having to add and remove it because I have people telling me what to

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > It is an open issue. It has to be resolved. When it is, I will remove > it. I added a question mark to it but it needs to be tracked. I keep > having to add and remove it because I have people telling me what to do. > > It was Peter who told me to

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
It is an open issue. It has to be resolved. When it is, I will remove it. I added a question mark to it but it needs to be tracked. I keep having to add and remove it because I have people telling me what to do. It was Peter who told me to add it, and you and Thomas to remove it. It isn't me

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Re-added to open items: > > Fix SIMILAR TO to be ANSI compliant or remove it (Peter, Tom) Tke that @#$@$@@$@#$ thing out of there until its actually been fully discussed ... you are starting to remind me of Charlie Brown ... this, I think, was

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem has been defined a > > bit more specifically then 'it isn't posix compliant', it shouldn't be > > considered an open item ... please remove? > > A quick

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes > > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ... > > I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go > beta2. I t

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes > > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ... > > I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go > beta2. I think I can get that d

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ... I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go beta2. I think I can get that done tomorrow. I can't recal

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Re-added to open items: Fix SIMILAR TO to be ANSI compliant or remove it (Peter, Tom) --- Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
> I completely agree with Bruce here. Requiring an initdb for every beta > release significantly reduces the number of people who will be willing > to try it out -- so initdb's between betas are not disasterous, but > should be avoided if possible. But it does mean that 7.3 to 7.3 pg_dump gets a

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Neil Conway
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code > > before we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb. > > Right, and? How many times in the past has it been the last bet

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem has been defined a > bit more specifically then 'it isn't posix compliant', it shouldn't be > considered an open item ... please remove? A quick review of SQL99 says that their notion of SIMILA

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO > > usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to > > decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get > > > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO > usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to > decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it > on. I can be taken off just as

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get > > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open > > > items list. I think w

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open > > items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for > > beta

Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Well, if nobody can identify what exactly the problem is, it should > definitely be removed from the Open Items list ... maybe we need to lay > down some 'rules' for the TODO list? Some sort of criteria other hten > "someone suggested it" to work with? For instance, cha

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open > items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for > beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance

The TODO List (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > ... > > > Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it > > > > Sorry, was there a decision here? > > > > No one has described the problem, just declared that there is one and > > declared that the feature should be removed

Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > > > is the updated list. > > > > > > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items. > > > > What's the timeframe for beta

Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items)

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > > is the updated list. > > > > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items. > > What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Going > > > > Point-in-time recovery > > Win32 port > > these have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ... OK, removed. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Going > > Point-in-time recovery > Win32 port these have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it > > Sorry, was there a decision here? > > No one has described the problem, just declared that there is one and > declared that the feature should be removed. > > In the old days, one might have expected to approa

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Sean Chittenden wrote: > > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > > is the updated list. > > > > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items. > > What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze > on Friday and I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Gavin Sherry wrote: > > Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin) > > I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication > of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering > that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > > is the updated list. > > SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed. > Added to open items: Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > is the updated list. SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-18 Thread Sean Chittenden
> There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week. Here > is the updated list. > > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items. What's the timeframe for beta2? FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-09-17 Thread Gavin Sherry
> Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin) I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable specific where as Tom saw no n

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-28 Thread One Way
Tom Lane: "And with the availability of schemas in 7.3, I think that multiple databases per installation is going to become less common to begin with --- people will more often use multiple schemas in one big database if they want the option of data sharing, or completely separate installations if

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-28 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we go to a thorough solution for virtual local databases, local users > of other databases ought to be completely invisible. Perhaps. I'm not convinced of that, but it's a defensible position. > I can't see how a group within a local database coul

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:10, Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This should cause no problem, because we have no > > cross-database communication; it should be impossible for "george@dummy" > > to have any connection with database "test". > > Not so; you need look n

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres > > local users are stored as user@dbname > > when connecting, global users add '@' to their names > > when connecting, local users use just their user name, no @dbnam

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Could we then have a TODO item: > > * Make local and global user representation consistent throughout. > > That's hardly an appropriately expansive TODO item. I prefer > > * Provide a real solution for database-local users

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could we then have a TODO item: > * Make local and global user representation consistent throughout. That's hardly an appropriately expansive TODO item. I prefer * Provide a real solution for database-local users ;-) r

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This should cause no problem, because we have no > cross-database communication; it should be impossible for "george@dummy" > to have any connection with database "test". Not so; you need look no further than the owner column of pg_database to find a c

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 22:44, Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So it seems to me that you have achieved a small footprint within the > > code, but potentially at the cost of a larger impact on users. > > I don't think anyone will deny that this is a kluge. However,

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps I might have been less confused if meaning (b) used a different > character, say "username!". Well, maybe ... but do we want to create two special characters in usernames, instead of one? @ still has to be considered special in incoming user

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So it seems to me that you have achieved a small footprint within the > code, but potentially at the cost of a larger impact on users. I don't think anyone will deny that this is a kluge. However, we are not going to resurrect the separate-password-fi

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 22:11, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Oliver Elphick wrote: > > Has this behaviour been carried through into GRANT and REVOKE? If the > > object is transparency for local users, it should be possible in > > database "test" to say "GRANT ... TO fred" and have "fred" understood as > >

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres > local users are stored as user@dbname > when connecting, global users add '@' to their names > when connecting, local users use just their user name, no @dbname I'm OK with this in princ

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Oliver Elphick wrote: > > I agree with what Tom said, and understand why he said it. And I thought you > > did, too -- I have apparently misunderstood (again!) the issue. > > > > In the local-enabled scheme, ISTM the majority of users will be local users. > > The goal is transparent virtual d

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 21:05, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:43 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Lamar Owen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I thought it WAS resolved, to do: > > > > > Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, we have enough votes to keep the existing behavior, unless Marc appears and says he doesn't like it. ;-) Thanks. --- Rod Taylor wrote: > It should also be noted that it's easy to get the DBAs to change their > usernam

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:43 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Lamar Owen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I thought it WAS resolved, to do: > > > > > Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who have to append > > > > the '@

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Yes, this is the counter case, where the '@' disappears; so it appears magically for local users, and disappears for global users. --- Robert Treat wrote: > Is the converse to this: > > $ psql -U postgres@ test > > Welco

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Rod Taylor
It should also be noted that it's easy to get the DBAs to change their username in the future when / if the @ hack goes away BUT it will be difficult to change the usernames of the hundreds to thousands of customer accounts. For an upgrade, we'd end up making a script in the upgrade to keep them

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Lamar Owen
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:43 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I thought it WAS resolved, to do: > > > Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who have to append > > > the '@'. > > At least that was my per

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can go either way. I am just saying we need to hear from more people > to make sure we are doing this properly. Likewise. In particular I'd like to hear from Marc, who after all is the one who caused us to consider this hack in the first place. Does

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think we need to resolve this discussion from a week ago. The current > > code is this: > > I thought it WAS resolved, to do: > > > global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres > > local us

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Lamar Owen
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think we need to resolve this discussion from a week ago. The current > code is this: I thought it WAS resolved, to do: > global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres > local users are stored as user@dbname

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
I think we need to resolve this discussion from a week ago. The current code is this: global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres local users are stored as user@dbname when connecting, global users add '@' to their names when connecting, local use

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-19 Thread Jeroen T. Vermeulen
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 11:08:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > integrate or move to gborg libpqxx, Pg:DBD It's no longer my CVS home tree... Is there something I can/should do for this? Jeroen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-19 Thread Lee Kindness
I'd have thought that if a matching user couldn't be found in the specified database then it would default to searching through the global users? Would be more intuitive... Lee. Bruce Momjian writes: > Sample run: > $ psql -U postgres test > psql: FATAL: user "postgres@test" does n

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread ngpg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote > * If a connection request has a username with a trailing '@' (and no > embedded '@'), then the '@' is stripped and connection proceeds. > > * Otherwise, '@dbname' is appended to the given username and > connection proceeds. > It might be worth recalling the

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm completely lost between all the proposals about where the @ is going > to be specified, added, or removed. What happens on the client side and > what happens on the server side? Well, the way things stand as of CVS tip is that (assuming you have

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm concerned that we leave essentially no migration path, that is, the > > ability to turn the feature on to try it out without immediately breaking > > every application. > > Uh ... what? I fail to understand your objection.

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, I think we are doing this backwards. Instead of adding '@' to > > global users, and then removing it in the backend, why don't we have > > local users end with '@', that way, global users continue to connect

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, I think we are doing this backwards. Instead of adding '@' to > global users, and then removing it in the backend, why don't we have > local users end with '@', that way, global users continue to connect > just as they have before, and local user

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm concerned that we leave essentially no migration path, that is, the > ability to turn the feature on to try it out without immediately breaking > every application. Uh ... what? I fail to understand your objection. AFAICS the only apps that cou

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > BTW, I just thought of a small improvement to your patch that eliminates > some of the ugliness. Suppose that when we recognize an attempt to > connect as a global user (ie, feature flag is on and last character of > username is '@'), we strip off the '@' before proceeding. I

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, applied, with that change. --- Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, here is the patch with the suggested changes. I am sending the > > patch to hackers because there has been so much inte

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, here is the patch with the suggested changes. I am sending the > patch to hackers because there has been so much interest in this. One minor gripe: > + /* If user@, it is a global user, remove '@' */ > + if (strchr(port->us

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, I think we are doing this backwards. Instead of adding '@' to > > global users, and then removing it in the backend, why don't we have > > local users end with '@', that way, global users continue to connect > > just as they have

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, I think we are doing this backwards. Instead of adding '@' to > global users, and then removing it in the backend, why don't we have > local users end with '@', that way, global users continue to connect > just as they have before, and local users c

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, I think we are doing this backwards. Instead of adding '@' to global users, and then removing it in the backend, why don't we have local users end with '@', that way, global users continue to connect just as they have before, and local users connect with @, so dave@db1 connects as 'dave@' an

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Sample run: $ psql -U postgres test psql: FATAL: user "postgres@test" does not exist $ psql -U postgres@ test Welcome to psql 7.3devel, the PostgreSQL interactive terminal. Type: \copyright for distribution terms \h for h

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, here is the patch with the suggested changes. I am sending the patch to hackers because there has been so much interest in this. --- Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, I just thought of a small improvement to your patch that elimi

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) wrote > > > > I know the trailing @ is ugly, but it prevents surpises when connecting > > to the database. > > > > if you would make the magic character a variable then perhaps you could > prevent the ugly... if/when you turn off th

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread ngpg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) wrote > > I know the trailing @ is ugly, but it prevents surpises when connecting > to the database. > if you would make the magic character a variable then perhaps you could prevent the ugly... if/when you turn off the feature, you could set the PGSQL_STUPI

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items: heap tuple header

2002-08-16 Thread Manfred Koizar
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:25:37 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Manfred Koizar wrote: >> This is the main point of disagreement: Tom Lane wants lighter >> macros, I want heavier macros. Which direction shall we go? > >Could you or Tom explain that in a way that others could u

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 20:03, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Sure. If I can get one more 'yes' I will submit a new patch with the > change. It does prevent the namespace collision without mucking up > pg_shadow. We only need to tell people that global users need to supply > their username to the client a

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, I just thought of a small improvement to your patch that eliminates > some of the ugliness. Suppose that when we recognize an attempt to > connect as a global user (ie, feature flag is on and last character of > username is '@'), we strip off the '@' before proceeding. The

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
BTW, I just thought of a small improvement to your patch that eliminates some of the ugliness. Suppose that when we recognize an attempt to connect as a global user (ie, feature flag is on and last character of username is '@'), we strip off the '@' before proceeding. Then we would have:

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My point has nothing to do with resistance to GUC configurables. Someone > WILL decide that having it as a default is a *Good Thing* because it's > there and is useful to them Which someone would this be? There's no chance that such a proposal woul

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:12AM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > RPMs aren't a good enough reason to put it in. All features aren't > > installed in an RPM, why would this need to? Besides, anything that > > is runtime configurable can end

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > Once again: *no one* has at any time suggested that any form of this > > patch should affect the default behavior in the slightest. > > Not yet they haven't. What happens when it's decided that this > *feature* is a good thing and should be the default? Maybe not > n

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Vince Vielhaber
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Lee Kindness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Vince Vielhaber writes: > >>> [ 'user@' patch ] > >>> whim. Then again as long as 7.2.1 is stable enough for me there's > >>> no reason to upgrade 'cuze I damn sure ain't going back and changing > >>> all sorts o

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Specifically, what is ugly about it? Is it that global users have an @ > at the end of their names? How do we prevent namespace collisions > _without_ doing this? I am all ears. The folks who are unhappy about this design basically think that the nam

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items: heap tuple header

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Manfred Koizar wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:05:07 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > P O S T G R E S Q L > > > > 7 . 3 O P E NI T E M S > > > >improve macros in new tuple header code (Manfred) > > ISTM ther

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items: heap tuple header

2002-08-16 Thread Manfred Koizar
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:05:07 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > P O S T G R E S Q L > > 7 . 3 O P E NI T E M S > >improve macros in new tuple header code (Manfred) ISTM there's no consensus about what "improve" mean

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I have seen some negative reactions to the feature. I am willing to ask > > for a vote, if that is what people want. If not, I will apply the patch > > in the next day or two. > > So are you calling for a vote or just wil

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items, with names

2002-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Reindex/btree shrinkage - does reindex need work, can btree be shrunk? > > I think there is zero probability that anything will be finished on this > in the next two weeks, considering that (a) no one is working on it, > and (b) it's

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 09:51, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:12AM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > RPMs aren't a good enough reason to put it in. All features aren't > > installed in an RPM, why would this need to? Besides, anything that > > is runtime configurable

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:12AM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > RPMs aren't a good enough reason to put it in. All features aren't > installed in an RPM, why would this need to? Besides, anything that > is runtime configurable can end up getting its default changed on a > whim. Then again

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Tom Lane
Lee Kindness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Vince Vielhaber writes: >>> [ 'user@' patch ] >>> whim. Then again as long as 7.2.1 is stable enough for me there's >>> no reason to upgrade 'cuze I damn sure ain't going back and changing >>> all sorts of programs and scripts that have global users. >

Re: [HACKERS] Open 7.3 items

2002-08-16 Thread Lee Kindness
Vince Vielhaber writes: > [ 'user@' patch ] > whim. Then again as long as 7.2.1 is stable enough for me there's > no reason to upgrade 'cuze I damn sure ain't going back and changing > all sorts of programs and scripts that have global users. Having read bits and pieces of this thread, can t

  1   2   3   4   >