Robert Haas writes:
> This discussion made me go back and look at the commit in question. My
> opinion is that the feature as it was committed is quite hard to
> understand. The documentation for it said this: "Specifies that
> variable should be set on behalf of ordinary role." But what does
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I have carefully noted your concerns regarding the USER SET patch that
> I've committed. It's clear that you have strong convictions about
> this, particularly in relation to your plan of storing the setter role
> OID in
On 5/17/23 1:30 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Tom,
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila writes:
Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
I
Tom,
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
>
> My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
> way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
I have carefully noted your concerns regarding
On 5/17/23 12:47 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:08:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Kapila writes:
Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
I
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:08:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
>
> My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
> way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
I agree. The problem seems worth solving,
Amit Kapila writes:
> Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
regards, tom lane
Hi, Amit.
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I see there are mainly three concerns (a) Avoid adding the new option
> USER SET, (b) The behavior of this feature varies from the precedents
> set by a0ffa885e and 13d838815, (c) As per discussion, not following
> 13d838815 could
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:01 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 1:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nathan Bossart writes:
> > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> The right way to do this was not to add some
> > >> poorly-explained option to ALTER
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 12:25:20PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> [RMT hat]
>
> I read through the original thread[1] to understand the use case and also
> the concerns, but I need to study [1] and this thread a bit more before I
> can form an opinion.
>
> The argument that there is "demand
On 4/28/23 12:29 PM, Pavel Borisov wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 17:42, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On 4/27/23 8:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
full set of
Hi!
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 17:42, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> On 4/27/23 8:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov
> > wrote:
> >> Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
> >> full set of management clauses for each
On 4/27/23 8:04 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
full set of management clauses for each individual option ownership.
Otherwise, we would leave this new role OID without
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 2:30 AM Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Additionally, I think if we start recording role OID, then we need a
> full set of management clauses for each individual option ownership.
> Otherwise, we would leave this new role OID without necessarily
> management facilities. But
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 1:38 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The right way to do this was not to add some
> >> poorly-explained option to ALTER ROLE, but to record the role OID that
> >> issued the ALTER ROLE, and
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The right way to do this was not to add some
>> poorly-explained option to ALTER ROLE, but to record the role OID that
>> issued the ALTER ROLE, and then to check when loading the ALTER ROLE
>> setting whether
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The right way to do this was not to add some
> poorly-explained option to ALTER ROLE, but to record the role OID that
> issued the ALTER ROLE, and then to check when loading the ALTER ROLE
> setting whether that role (still) has the right
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I suspect the problem is that GUCArrayDelete() is using the wrong Datum:
> -newUsersetArray = construct_array_builtin(, 1, BOOLOID);
> +newUsersetArray = construct_array_builtin(, 1,
> BOOLOID);
Ah, should have checked my mail earlier.
David Steele writes:
> On 4/27/23 21:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried to replicate this per that recipe, but it works for me:
> I included the errors in the expect log so I could link to them. So test
> success means the error is happening.
Ah, got it.
I added some debug output to the test, and
.On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:55 PM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 09:53:23PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Thanks to everybody for catching and investigating this.
> > Nathan, I'd like to push it myself. I'm also going to check the code
> > for similar errors.
>
> Sounds
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 09:53:23PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Thanks to everybody for catching and investigating this.
> Nathan, I'd like to push it myself. I'm also going to check the code
> for similar errors.
Sounds good!
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 9:51 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 09:47:33PM +0300, David Steele wrote:
> > That seems to work. The errors are now gone.
>
> Great. Barring objections, I'll plan on committing this shortly.
Thanks to everybody for catching and investigating
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 09:47:33PM +0300, David Steele wrote:
> That seems to work. The errors are now gone.
Great. Barring objections, I'll plan on committing this shortly.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On 4/27/23 21:43, Nathan Bossart wrote:
I suspect the problem is that GUCArrayDelete() is using the wrong Datum:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
index 9dd624b3ae..ee9f87e7f2 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
@@
I suspect the problem is that GUCArrayDelete() is using the wrong Datum:
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
index 9dd624b3ae..ee9f87e7f2 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
@@ -6496,7 +6496,7 @@
On 4/27/23 21:16, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele writes:
Seems plausible. This can be reproduced by cloning [1] into contrib and
running `make check`. I can work out another test case but it may not
end up being simpler.
[1] https://github.com/pgaudit/pgaudit/tree/dev-pg16-ci
I tried to
David Steele writes:
> Seems plausible. This can be reproduced by cloning [1] into contrib and
> running `make check`. I can work out another test case but it may not
> end up being simpler.
> [1] https://github.com/pgaudit/pgaudit/tree/dev-pg16-ci
I tried to replicate this per that recipe,
On 4/27/23 19:13, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele writes:
I have been updating pgAudit for PG16 and ran into the following issue
in the regression tests:
\connect - user1
WARNING: permission denied to set parameter "pgaudit.log_level"
This happens after switching back and forth a few times
David Steele writes:
> I have been updating pgAudit for PG16 and ran into the following issue
> in the regression tests:
> \connect - user1
> WARNING: permission denied to set parameter "pgaudit.log_level"
> This happens after switching back and forth a few times between the
> current user
Hackers,
I have been updating pgAudit for PG16 and ran into the following issue
in the regression tests:
\connect - user1
WARNING: permission denied to set parameter "pgaudit.log_level"
This happens after switching back and forth a few times between the
current user when the regression
30 matches
Mail list logo
