I proposed here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00436.php
that we change the way that psql deals with localization of column
names and other fixed strings in the output of \d and related commands
(basically, anything that calls printQuery()). Specifically, we should
avoid
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:56:39AM +, Dave Page wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Gregory Stark wrote:
> An alternative is leaving it in the project file but putting
> something like
> this in c.h:
> >>
> >> Put it in w
I add few sentences how to write cache works on Solaris platform.
Zdenek
Index: doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml
===
RCS file: /zfs_data/cvs_pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.49
diff -c -r1.49 wa
Tom Lane wrote:
It's also worth noting that we haven't removed the PGPASSWORD
environment variable, even though that's demonstrably insecure on some
platforms.
True. But at least its use is deprecated. The reason I put in PGPASSFILE
was to tempt (so far unsuccessfully) the maintainers of
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:47:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If we want to prevent it for psql, we should actually prevent it *in* psql,
not in libpq. There are an infinite number of scenarios where it's
perfectly safe to put the password there... If
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:47:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we want to prevent it for psql, we should actually prevent it *in* psql,
> not in libpq. There are an infinite number of scenarios where it's
> perfectly safe to put the password there... If we want to do it sh
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I think you could get the same effect by putting the -W in PGOPTIONS (in
>>> pgbench's environment).
>
>> That's a good point. It does have the downside that it will affect the
>> pgbench results - though that wou
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:47:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I'm going to have to vote 'silly' on this one.
>
> > It's a matter of being consistent. If we think such a facility shouldn't
> > be provided on security grounds, t
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:40:37PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>
> >>You seem to have misunderstood what I am suggesting. Of course we should
> >>document use of buildenv.pl in addition to the hacky fix to the .bat
> >>files. The hack is the part that would be i
