Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to v
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have never seen YY/MM/DD, only -MM-DD.
You have apparently forgotten what was standard practice just a few
years ago.
> The huge problem is
> deciding out how to decode 03-02-01. I think we have to require the
> century for those.
No, the entire
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> INSERT INTO TIMESTAMP_TBL VALUES ('97/02/10 17:32:01 UTC');
> >> + ERROR: Bad timestamp external representation '97/02/10 17:32:01 UTC'
>
> > Again, this one should fail.
>
> It should? I think you're gonna have a lot of unhappy u
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Seems my check constraint change did break stuff.
>
> Alias the appropriate columns back to their original name.
>
> Fixed formatting of a f
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> INSERT INTO TIMESTAMP_TBL VALUES ('97/02/10 17:32:01 UTC');
>> + ERROR: Bad timestamp external representation '97/02/10 17:32:01 UTC'
> Again, this one should fail.
It should? I think you're gonna have a lot of unhappy users if there's
no way to pers
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 11:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It seems that readline() on my system (FreeBSD 4
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not having any luck finding that message in the archives right
>> now. Sumit, did you keep a copy?
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=28882.1057162309%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Thanks, but that actu
I did a little more looking at this...
> test=> select '2003-09-31'::date;
> ERROR: Bad date external representation '2003-09-31'
>
> I did find the following change in the regression tests:
>
> INSERT INTO TIMESTAMP_TBL VALUES ('02-10-1997 17:32:01 PST');
> INSERT INTO TIMESTA
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom, what changes need to be made, or are you too busy?
>
> It needs a ground-up rewrite, and I'm too busy to think about that
> anytime soon. I sent a long list of problems as commentary on the
> patch about a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Some very minimal checking could be put into place, but it would just be
> a small subset of the full checking that occurs later on, so it seemed
> better to leave all that logic in one place.
Then why not move the rangechecks on month to the full check code too?
(It
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom, what changes need to be made, or are you too busy?
It needs a ground-up rewrite, and I'm too busy to think about that
anytime soon. I sent a long list of problems as commentary on the
patch about a month ago. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy, an
OK, I tested the patch and found that it still does proper date validity
checking:
test=> select '2003-09-31'::date;
ERROR: Bad date external representation '2003-09-31'
I did find the following change in the regression tests:
INSERT INTO TIMESTAMP_TBL VALUES ('02-10-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Greg, does this patch still reject dates with month/days out of range?
> I see some of the range checks are removed. Where those checks used
> only for the month/date detection?
Yes and yes. The range rejection in the previous code only allowed
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > If your system is broken in that particular way, upgrade your system or
> > don't use setuid programs at all. Those are the only sane choices. It is
> > not an acceptable choice to disable all valid uses of nonabsolute sonames
> > for all users, just because some users a
Tom, what changes need to be made, or are you too busy?
---
Srikanth M wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> Please tell the changes you want to incorporate in the present
> DATACUBE operator.
>
> Thanking you
>
> Srikanth
> Sum
Greg, does this patch still reject dates with month/days out of range?
I see some of the range checks are removed. Where those checks used
only for the month/date detection?
For example, I don't see the <= 31 checks in there anymore.
--On Friday, July 25, 2003 03:28:55 -0500 Andrew Dunstan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally I understand the issue, I think.
But wouldn't an ordinary user on SCO wanting to install a private copy of
Pg then have to hack the Makefiles to change/remove the abolute DT_SONAME?
If so, that seems to
Finally I understand the issue, I think.
But wouldn't an ordinary user on SCO wanting to install a private copy of
Pg then have to hack the Makefiles to change/remove the abolute DT_SONAME?
If so, that seems to me to mandate that this not be in the vanilla
distribution. OS Vendors commonly make c
--On Friday, July 25, 2003 11:58:18 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
I disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying here. What harm does it do
to add the ABILITY for a port to use a ABSOLUTE DT_SONAME?
We can discuss adding the ability, but I'm against en
Larry Rosenman writes:
> I disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying here. What harm does it do to
> add the ABILITY for a port to use a ABSOLUTE DT_SONAME?
We can discuss adding the ability, but I'm against enforcing it by
default.
> I belive that the issue is not broken systems, but broken p
--On Friday, July 25, 2003 09:37:04 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman writes:
Universal Practice does NOT equal Security and Usability.
Please consider what Kean is saying here.
What Kean is saying is that your system is insecure if you have a setuid
executable
Larry Rosenman writes:
> Universal Practice does NOT equal Security and Usability.
>
> Please consider what Kean is saying here.
What Kean is saying is that your system is insecure if you have a setuid
executable that references shared libraries with nonabsolute sonames and
you have a system (an
22 matches
Mail list logo
