Re: [PATCHES] pgkill for windows

2004-05-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian said: I was hoping to avoid platform-specific binaries. Once pg_ctl is done in C, it can start/stop the postmaster, but not individual backends. Can we add a flag to pg_ctl so it can send arbitrary signals to processed on Win32? That would be best, I think. Ok, that makes

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid? Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in double format when the server was expecting one in int64 format.

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid? Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in double format when the

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Stephen Frost wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. * Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid? Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in double format when the server was expecting one in

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. * Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid? Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: I'll see about writing up a proper test case/schema. Looks like I'm probably most of the way there at this point, really. ;) I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields like that. I thought you

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Stephen Frost wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. * Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: I'll see about writing up a proper test case/schema. Looks like I'm probably most of the way there at this point, really. ;) I wasn't aware you could throw binary

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Considering all the other things the database is doing, I can't imagine that would be a measurable improvement. It makes it easier on my client program too which is listening to an ethernet interface and trying to process all of the packets coming in

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value. This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the wire-protocol overhaul. It's nothing directly to do with PREPARE; you

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value. This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't aware you could throw binary values into the timestamp fields like that. I thought you needed to use a C string for the value. This facility was added in 7.4 as part of the wire-protocol overhaul. It's nothing directly to

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How many datatype have this issue? I don't think that many do.. A number of them already check incoming values where it's possible for them to not be valid. In general we do check incoming binary values to ensure minimal validity. I think when I did

Re: [PATCHES] Add error-checking to timestamp_recv

2004-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: In general we do check incoming binary values to ensure minimal validity. I think when I did timestamp_recv I was thinking it was just like int8 or float8 (respectively), in that any bit pattern is potentially legal; I had forgotten about the range restrictions. I haven't looked at

[PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Jorge Pereira
After trying to do some custom dumping/restoring, and having to resort to the awful trick of changing the trigger counts on the catalog (the stuff pg_dump adds), decided to add a couple little variables to control disabling constraints and triggers. Added them to guc.c so that they show up in the

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Tom Lane
Jorge Pereira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... decided to add a couple little variables to control disabling constraints and triggers. I'm not of the opinion that we actually want any such thing, as it's a blatant violation of the fundamental concept of data integrity. But in any case not with

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Configuration patch

2004-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
[ Will apply with adjustment, removing tablespaces. Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Jorge Pereira
Tom Lane wrote: Jorge Pereira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... decided to add a couple little variables to control disabling constraints and triggers. I'm not of the opinion that we actually want any such thing, as it's a blatant violation of the fundamental concept of data integrity. I

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Yes, agreed. I think we decided that super-user-only could disable trigger on a global basis. I prevent folks from mucking with the system tables to do it. --- Jorge Pereira wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Jorge Pereira [EMAIL

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Yes, agreed. I think we decided that super-user-only could disable trigger on a global basis. I prevent folks from mucking with the system tables to do it. It should be a per-table thing: ALTER TABLE blah [ DISABLE | ENABLE ] [ALL | FOREIGN KEY ] TRIGGERS; Chris ---(end

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Jorge Pereira
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Yes, agreed. I think we decided that super-user-only could disable trigger on a global basis. I prevent folks from mucking with the system tables to do it. It should be a per-table thing: ALTER TABLE blah [ DISABLE | ENABLE ] [ALL | FOREIGN KEY ] TRIGGERS; Doing

Re: [PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Doing it with alter table seems to imply that the change is permanent (eg, the table loses checking), whereas that is most certainly not what is wanted. With a SET variable it lasts only for the session, and doesn't have to be reset manually. Ah, then in that case, how about adding to the

[PATCHES] About PostgreSQL

2004-05-20 Thread Valentin Petkov
Hi I want to download PostgreSQL How it is work? valBG

[PATCHES] Disabling triggers / constraints

2004-05-20 Thread Jorge Pereira
After trying to do some custom dumping/restoring, and having to resort to the awful trick of changing the trigger counts on the catalog (the stuff pg_dump adds), decided to add a couple little variables to control disabling constraints and triggers. Added them to guc.c so that they show up in