On 27.12.2022 16:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
If there are no other considerations could you close the corresponding
record on the January CF, please?
Indeed, now marked as committed.
-
Thanks a lot!
Merry Christmas!
--
Anton A. Melnikov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 03:26:10PM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> I would like to try realize this, better in a separate thread.
I don't think that this should be added into the tree, but if you have
per-version filtering rules, of course feel free to publish that to
the lists. I am sure that
Hello!
On 27.12.2022 08:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
It is worth noting that perlcritic was complaining here, as eval is
getting used with a string. I have spent a few days looking at that,
and I really want a maximum of flexibility in the rules that can be
applied so I have put a "no critic"
On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 09:22:08AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> Made a separate patch for it: v3-0001-Fix-dumps-filtering.patch
Well, the thing about this part is that is it is not needed: the same
can be achieved with 0002 in place.
> Yes, indeed. It will be really simpler.
> Made it in
Hello!
On 23.12.2022 05:42, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:59:18AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
2) v2-0002-Additional-dumps-filtering.patch
+ # Replace specific privilegies with ALL
+ $dump_contents =~ s/^(GRANT\s|REVOKE\s)(\S*)\s/$1ALL /mgx;
This should not
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:43:00PM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> Sorry, didn't get to see the last letter!
No worries, the result is the same :)
I was looking at 0002 to add a callback to provide custom filtering
rules.
+ my @ext_filter = split('\/', $_);
Are you sure that
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:39:25AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> LGTM. Thanks.
Done as of d3c0cc4.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:39:25AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 05:51:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> FWIW, I find the use of a FOR loop with a DO block much cleaner to
>> follow in this context, so something like the attached would be able
>> to group the two
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 05:51:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:27:24PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > This would do a single seqscan:
> > SELECT format('ALTER TABLE %I ALTER COLUMN %I TYPE TEXT',
> > attrelid::regclass, attname) FROM pg_attribute WHERE
> >
Sorry, didn't get to see the last letter!
On 23.12.2022 11:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
FWIW, I find the use of a FOR loop with a DO block much cleaner to
follow in this context, so something like the attached would be able
to group the two queries and address your point on O(N^2). Do you
like
Hello!
On 23.12.2022 06:27, Justin Pryzby wrote:
This would do a single seqscan:
SELECT format('ALTER TABLE %I ALTER COLUMN %I TYPE TEXT', attrelid::regclass,
attname) FROM pg_attribute WHERE atttypid='aclitem'::regtype; -- AND ...
\gexec
Touched a bit on how long it takes to execute
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:27:24PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> This would do a single seqscan:
> SELECT format('ALTER TABLE %I ALTER COLUMN %I TYPE TEXT',
> attrelid::regclass, attname) FROM pg_attribute WHERE
> atttypid='aclitem'::regtype; -- AND ...
> \gexec
FWIW, I find the use of a FOR loop
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 11:42:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm. 0001 does a direct check on aclitem as data type used in an
> attribute,
> For now, I have fixed the most pressing part for tables to match with
> the buildfarm
+DO $$
+ DECLARE
+rec text;
+ col text;
+ BEGIN
+
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:59:18AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> 2) v2-0002-Additional-dumps-filtering.patch
+ # Replace specific privilegies with ALL
+ $dump_contents =~ s/^(GRANT\s|REVOKE\s)(\S*)\s/$1ALL /mgx;
This should not be in 0002, I guess..
> Yes. Made a hook that allows
Hello!
Divided patch into two parts: first part refers to the modification of
the old dump while the second one relates to dump filtering.
1) v2-0001-Remove-aclitem-from-old-dump.patch
On 19.12.2022 06:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
This is forgetting about materialized views, which is something
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 08:56:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Anton A. Melnikov" writes:
>> 2) In 60684dd83 and b5d63824 there are two changes in the set of specific
>> privileges.
>> The thing is that in the privileges.sql test there is REVOKE DELETE command
>> which becomes pair of REVOKE ALL
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:50:19AM +0300, Anton A. Melnikov wrote:
> +-- The internal format of "aclitem" changed in PostgreSQL version 16
> +-- so replace it with text type
> +\if :oldpgversion_le15
> +DO $$
> +DECLARE
> +change_aclitem_type TEXT;
> +BEGIN
> +FOR change_aclitem_type IN
>
"Anton A. Melnikov" writes:
> 2) In 60684dd83 and b5d63824 there are two changes in the set of specific
> privileges.
> The thing is that in the privileges.sql test there is REVOKE DELETE command
> which becomes pair of REVOKE ALL and GRANT all specific privileges except
> DELETE
> in the
Hello!
Found that pg_upgrade test has broken for upgrades from older versions.
This happened for two reasons.
1) In 7b378237a the format of "aclitem" changed so upgrade from <=15
fails with error:
"Your installation contains the "aclitem" data type in user tables.
The internal format of
19 matches
Mail list logo
