Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Vasilis Ventirozos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i know what the trigger does, i writed it :)
>> i dont have a problem , i already fixed the function to work nice and smooth
>> i just sent it for fun, anyway no problem about the subject
> probably the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juan Miguel Paredes) writes:
> I know it would be a hard approach but... perhaps ON DELETE and ON
> UPDATE triggers would help?
No, that's not even related to the real problem.
The problem is that the ability to have transactions is deeply
pervasive, and requires a writable sto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Marlowe) writes:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:08, Ing. Jhon Carrillo wrote:
>> I have a problem with the users administration. When I want to erase
>> (drop) some databases there's an error: ** database "name_db" is being
>> accessed by other users.** I want to kill the us
* Wim Bertels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since brute force attacks are quit traceable (targetting one and the
> same user eg..),
> one could a script to check:
> - the percentage of failed logins/user, depending on the percentage (eg
> 75% or more failed, this should be configurable), these e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tom Lane suggested a vacuum freeze (? or something like that) for archival
> read only data. I got the impression the template databases are freeze
> dried for freshness (good to the last bit?) That feature might help as
> well in the transition from read-write to read
* Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you can use client side certificates.
how can they be used w/ psql ?
cu
--
-
Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service
phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http:
* Lentes, Bernd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> The parameter -w "waits until operation completes". I don't know for
> what exactly he is waiting (maybe better weather), but i deleted the
> parameter, and now everything is working fine.
the postmaster now comes up properly ?
cu
--
--
* Vasilis Ventirozos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i know what the trigger does, i writed it :)
> i dont have a problem , i already fixed the function to work nice and smooth
> i just sent it for fun, anyway no problem about the subject
probably there should be a detection of too deep recursion ins
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 16:18, Ing. Jhon Carrillo wrote:
> I have a postgresql database 7.4, i require my db doesn't work with
> automatic transactions. how do i do to change the status "auto-commit"?
>
You need to handle that in your client software/api rather than in the
database. If you buil
>When trying to run postgres in Windows with a non-admin
>account, we are
>running into issues with network drives.
>
>Currently we run the DB server as a separate user because that's
>what postgres wants (it doesn't like to be admin).
>
>But on Windows, the mapped drives letters (to network driv
When trying to run postgres in Windows with a non-admin account, we are
running into issues with network drives.
Currently we run the DB server as a separate user because that's
what postgres wants (it doesn't like to be admin).
But on Windows, the mapped drives letters (to network drives) are
un
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30, Ing. Jhon Carrillo wrote:
> I need when the users are conected to pgadmin only have access to
> their databases (owners) and not entry to another databases when they
> aren't owners.
>
> thanks.
Look here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/client-authenti
I know it would be a hard approach but... perhaps ON DELETE and ON UPDATE triggers would help?
On 5/11/05, Jay A. Kreibich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:51:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on the wall:
> I would like to clarify something.> I intend to create the datab
Tom Lane suggested a vacuum freeze (? or something like that) for archival
read only data. I got the impression the template databases are freeze
dried for freshness (good to the last bit?) That feature might help as
well in the transition from read-write to read-only.
Rick
I need when the users are conected to
pgadmin only have access to their databases (owners) and not
entry to another databases when they aren't owners.
thanks.
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:51:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scratched on the
wall:
> I would like to clarify something.
> I intend to create the database on a re-writable device (not WORM).
> At some point, when I no longer want to add/modify the database, I
> plan to copy it to the WORM device. T
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:08, Ing. Jhon Carrillo wrote:
> I have a problem with the users administration. When I want to erase
> (drop) some databases there's an error: ** database "name_db" is being
> accessed by other users.** I want to kill the user sessions conected
> but i don't know how to d
I have a postgresql database 7.4, i require my
db doesn't work with automatic transactions. how do i do to change the
status "auto-commit"?
thanks.
I have a problem with the
users administration. When I want to erase (drop) some databases there's an
error: ** database "name_db" is being accessed by other
users.** I want to kill the user sessions conected
but i don't know how to do it (Kill the user sessions).
thanks.
If you simply put your database tables in their own tablespace, then
move that tablespace to a WORM device, I can't see why that wouldn't
work as long as you keep all the system tables etc.. on the regular RW
tablespace
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 5/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
I would like to clarify something.
I intend to create the database on a re-writable device (not WORM). At some
point, when I no longer want to add/modify the database, I plan to copy it to
the WORM device. Then I would like to be able to access the database on the
WORM device for reading purpose
Isn't there some way to trick PostgreSQL with a RAM disk, like for the WAL?
Rick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2005 02:31:55 PM:
> Why? Any specific reason that you are aware of ?
> Are there any writes done to the database when read only SQL
> statements are issued?
>
>
> -Original Messa
I think simply initialising the system causes writes in the system
tables and the WAL...
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can chime in.
Alex. Turner
netEconomist
On 5/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? Any specific reason that you are aware of ?
> Are there any writes
Why? Any specific reason that you are aware of ?
Are there any writes done to the database when read only SQL statements are
issued?
-Original Message-
From: Douglas McNaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:51 PM
To: Goshen, Galit
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to store the complete database into a WORM device (Write Once
> Read Many). I would like to access this database directly from the WORM
> device and perform read only SQL statements against this device.
>
> Does anyone have such installation, or can det
I think for security reasons I should not run PostgreSQL from the root account.
Also, as PostgreSQL will probably be only one of the applications running on
this box.
(would running in UML give me any extra security? - I suspect not the right
tool??)
IF I'm wrong to worry about root account, now
I would like to store the
complete database into a WORM device (Write Once Read Many). I would like to
access this database directly from the WORM device and perform read only SQL
statements against this device.
Does anyone have such
installation, or can determine if this is possible?
Ga
thank you ,
this makes sense.
lori
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Lori wrote:
Either Im tired or the documentation is confusing,
when do I need to modify pg_hba.conf
vs just doing a
createuser
thanks
Well that entirely depends but in general if the user is connecting
to the same database from the same net
When I did my Q/A I was using the 7.4 ODBC drivers.
When I loaded the IIS servers (the real production ones not
my test ones) I use the latest 8 version.
My guess is the new ODBC drivers do something different (I
am not on that list or I would post this there, but I wanted to document
"Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know what a permission of "*" means, so that's what I call "limbo".
It means you still have grant options. This is fixed in 8.0.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
T
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:11 PM
> To: Dave Held
> Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Irrevocable privileges
>
>
> "Dave Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think it's silly that any privileges tha
31 matches
Mail list logo
