Folks, Need soem review sorting what appears to be an oversight or something....
courier ports and tarballs appear to contain some errors in .../authlib/README.authpostgres.html, correctable as follows, (Subject to review): 1) As Reads: id varchar(128) DEFAULT ' ' NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, Is Amended to read: id varchar(128) DEFAULT ' ' NOT NULL, Add after rthe last line ..... 'quota.......... NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT id PRIMARY KEY (id) - (with no trailing comma) REASON: Placed per the existing README.aithpostgres.html suggestion, the constraint will create an implicit primary key named 'passwd-pkey'. This may not give the same results that appear to be expected, i.e. a primary key named 'id' is created in the MySQL module, which is referred to as of interest to the postgresql module. The suggested fix instead creates primary key: id in postgresql also. (which one of these keys is expected by the calling courtier-mta module is yet To Be Determined - but this makes it look like MySQL). Sam? 2) If the above fix is NOT appropriate, the trailing comma after 'quota ..... NOT NULL," must be removed. Postgresql will not accept a comma after the *last* entry in the list of columns. 3) As Reads: 'int(10) unsigned DEFAULT...' .... in the two rows establishing uid and gid Is Amended To Read: integer DEFAULT ...' I can find no mention of such a data type as 'int(10)', nor an integer type with the range sought, nor a constraint that (directly) permits limiting it to a positive value. smallint, int2 are -32768 to +32767, which will not hold the suggested default value. integer, int4 are -2147483648 to + 2147483647, which will (and more besides) but may not map to the size of the variable it is to be transferred to/from. I don't suppose anyhting else is going to place into, or expect from either uid or guid values in excess of 65K or less than zero, BUT a CONSTRAINT CHECK.... (with overhead...) could be applied that check for such bounds in another column or a separate table if it is a concern. Action: Need confirmation that 'id', not 'pkey_passwd' is the name wanted for the primary key. Need confirmation that working with integer / int4 'as is' will not pose a problem. Regards, Bill Hacker -- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
