Re: [BUGS] Kerberos authentication, Active Directory, and PostgreSQL

2009-10-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Magnus Hagander wrote: 2009/10/13 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us: Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes: Magnus Hagander wrote: Actually, I found a note that said it's recommended to never increase it about 65535 - so perhaps we should put our limit at that instead od

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5107: Lock never released

2009-10-14 Thread Chris Browne
t...@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes: Christian DUPONT christian.dup...@cegelec.com writes: I use slony 1 v 1.2.14. After an unexpected stop, several tables remained locked : Is it possible that the locks are being held by a prepared transaction? Next time it happens, look into the

Re: [BUGS] Kerberos authentication, Active Directory, and PostgreSQL

2009-10-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: A small wish in case we go with this: The constant should be named something like PG_...; otherwise it looks like we are defining or overriding an official symbol from the GSS API. I'd be inclined to just s/2000/32767/ and not bother

[BUGS] issue with integer nullable column and value 0

2009-10-14 Thread Sean Hsien
Hi guys, I'm not sure what the source of this bug is, as I'm getting a discrepancy between 8.1 on Linux vs. 8.4 on Windows, using the latest JDBC driver type 4. The issue is this, I have a nullable integer column in one of my tables. When I'm updating the column in 8.4 Windows with value 0, it

[BUGS] BUG #5114: database initialization

2009-10-14 Thread
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 5114 Logged by: Email address: flamindrag...@gmail.com PostgreSQL version: any Operating system: Win XP Pro SP2 Description:database initialization Details: Hey I keep getting the failed to run initdb: 1

Re: [BUGS] issue with integer nullable column and value 0

2009-10-14 Thread Kevin Grittner
Sean Hsien umph...@gmail.com wrote: using the latest JDBC driver type 4. I have a nullable integer column in one of my tables. When I'm updating the column in 8.4 Windows with value 0, it stays as null, but on the Linux 8.1 it will try to update it with the value 0. Could you post a

[BUGS] BUG #5115: ADD UNIQUE table_constraint with expression

2009-10-14 Thread Vladimir Kokovic
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 5115 Logged by: Vladimir Kokovic Email address: vladimir.koko...@a-asoft.com PostgreSQL version: PostgreSQL 8.4. Operating system: Linux vlD-kuci 2.6.28-15-generic #52-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 9 10:49:34 UTC 2009 i686

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5115: ADD UNIQUE table_constraint with expression

2009-10-14 Thread Kevin Grittner
Vladimir Kokovic vladimir.koko...@a-asoft.com wrote: For ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT documentation says: ADD table_constraint This form adds a new constraint to a table using the same syntax as CREATE TABLE. Which is specified as UNIQUE ( column_name [, ... ] ) But if expression

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5115: ADD UNIQUE table_constraint with expression

2009-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
Vladimir Kokovic vladimir.koko...@a-asoft.com writes: For ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT documentation says: ADD table_constraint This form adds a new constraint to a table using the same syntax as CREATE TABLE. But if expression is used in the constraint definition server says: # ALTER

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5115: ADD UNIQUE table_constraint with expression

2009-10-14 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Vladimir Kokovic wrote: For ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT documentation says: ADD table_constraint This form adds a new constraint to a table using the same syntax as CREATE TABLE. But if expression is used in the constraint definition server says: # ALTER TABLE

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5115: ADD UNIQUE table_constraint with expression

2009-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
=?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgS29rb3ZpxIc=?= vladimir.koko...@a-asoft.com writes: Real question is Why we need two syntaxes for the same thing ? Because the SQL standard says so: UNIQUE-constraint syntax is limited to simple column names. We can't just extend that because it would break the

Re: [BUGS] Kerberos authentication, Active Directory, and PostgreSQL

2009-10-14 Thread Turner, Ian
I'll rename it to PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH, unless someone has a better suggestion. If we are not changing this for all authentication schemes, then the name should probably reflect that this is for GSS and SSPI only (not even KRB5). --Ian -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list

Re: [BUGS] Kerberos authentication, Active Directory, and PostgreSQL

2009-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
Turner, Ian ian.tur...@deshaw.com writes: I'll rename it to PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH, unless someone has a better suggestion. If we are not changing this for all authentication schemes, then the name should probably reflect that this is for GSS and SSPI only (not even KRB5). Then we'd have

Re: [BUGS] Kerberos authentication, Active Directory, and PostgreSQL

2009-10-14 Thread Turner, Ian
The original naming complaint reflected a concern that the symbol looked like it was supplied by the system headers, rather than being of Postgres origin. Heikki's suggestion deals with that, and I think it's fine as-is. OK, fine with me. --Ian -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list

[BUGS] BUG #5116: could not determine encoding for locale

2009-10-14 Thread Nikolai Wendorf
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 5116 Logged by: Nikolai Wendorf Email address: nikol...@embarqmail.com PostgreSQL version: 8.4.1 Operating system: Solaris 9 Description:could not determine encoding for locale Details: 30psql psql (8.4.1)

Re: [BUGS] BUG #5116: could not determine encoding for locale

2009-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
Nikolai Wendorf nikol...@embarqmail.com writes: Operating system: Solaris 9 Description:could not determine encoding for locale WARNING: could not determine encoding for locale en_US.ISO8859-1: codeset is 646 Well, that's truly stupid :-(. The only plausible referent for 646 that