-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 19 December 2002 08:37, you wrote:
> Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi all!
> > I get the following error when trying to connect to a pg-7.3 database on
> > Solaris8 with the 7.3 JD
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor.
Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config.
Should we?
Yes.
Philip Warner| __-
Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've been playing around with making it possible to create user defined guc
variables. This has been discussed, at least in passing, before. And it is
even anticipated in guc.c as a possible future feature:
It's fairly clear how the mechan
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been playing around with making it possible to create user defined guc
> variables. This has been discussed, at least in passing, before. And it is
> even anticipated in guc.c as a possible future feature:
It's fairly clear how the mechanisms for thi
Hey guys,
I was just thinking about altering column type. Now, I'm not actually going
to implement it any time soon, but I'm just thinking about it!!!
One proposal was to introduce a new pg_attribute column called 'attlognum'
so changing a column would involve adding a new column, dropping the o
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
> > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
> > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news w
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. Should we?
---
Philip Warner wrote:
> At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
> >the ne
At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak
the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything?
Seeing the setting for MAX_FSM_RELATIONS bumped to 1000 would be good
(patch already sent)
---
'K, I'm going to remove the tar files ... Bruce, can you go through these
and get them fixed up?
Peter, I have to take part of the blame away from Tom ... I'm on the road
tomrorow afternoon to Ontario, and won't be back online until *late* Fri,
so we kinda rushed it all ...
Tom, we tried ... I'l
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If users always use TSL-capable clients, there shouldn't be any issue.
> I was kind of surprised that folks couldn't get the existing TLS code
> working because I had it working here, and I don't have the newest
> setup. I though that TSL support was me
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > In short, I wouldn't call SSLv2 insecure, just less secure then v3. I
> > think it's perfectly reasonable to phase it out, just not right now.
> > It'd be nice to have some sort of transition version so you wouldn't
> > have to switch over all your different client progr
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > My suggestion would be to eventually phase out ssl2 in favor of ssl3 or
> > > tls. And, as we are phasing it out, make it an opt-in thing, where the
> > > dba has to turn on ssl2 KNOWING he is turning on a flawed protocol.
> >
> > That was sort of my point --- if we a
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Nathan Mueller wrote:
> > At this point, all the SSL2 problems are conjecture on my part, which
> > I
> > don't understand. I hesitate to do anything until someone really
> > knowledgeable can comment. Re-enabling SSL2 as part of 7.3.1 makes
> > sense until we can get a defina
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > I wasn't sure how insecure SSL2 was, and whether it allowed you to
> > > authenticate without a password or something.
> >
> > SSL2 seems to get a lot of votes for being broken in ways that cannot be
> > fixed because they aren
Hi,
Just letting people know that I've mostly stopped working on ADD COLUMN now.
Basically it rapidly got way out of my league!
Problems are:
1. Evaluating default for each row
2. Checking against check constraint
3. Checking against domain constraints
4. Whether or not it's considered an inser
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
What exactly can you do with these variables other than SHOW/SET. Seems
it would be nice if they could be used in queries, like in a special
table like sysvar:
SELECT sysvar.fsync;
Isn't that just identical to having a table?
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> What exactly can you do with these variables other than SHOW/SET. Seems
> it would be nice if they could be used in queries, like in a special
> table like sysvar:
>
> SELECT sysvar.fsync;
Isn't that just identical to having a table?
Gavin
- Original Message -
From: "Gavin Sherry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> > I've been playing around with making it possible to create user defined guc
> > variables. This has been discussed, at least in passing, bef
What exactly can you do with these variables other than SHOW/SET. Seems
it would be nice if they could be used in queries, like in a special
table like sysvar:
SELECT sysvar.fsync;
---
Joe Conway wrote:
> I've been
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Joe Conway wrote:
> I've been playing around with making it possible to create user defined guc
> variables. This has been discussed, at least in passing, before. And it is
> even anticipated in guc.c as a possible future feature:
> /*
> * Build the sorted array. This is
I've been playing around with making it possible to create user defined guc
variables. This has been discussed, at least in passing, before. And it is
even anticipated in guc.c as a possible future feature:
/*
* Build the sorted array. This is split out so that it could be
* re-executed after s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I meant we don't create new doc tarballs for minor releases. Is that
> still true?
If someone's willing to do the work of regenerating the doc tarballs,
I think it would be a real good idea to update them for minor releases.
Peter, are you volunteering
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I have not been aggressive about backpatching documentation improvements
> > into 7.3.1. Is that something I should check?
>
> Probably in the future it would be good to put a minimal amount of work
> in polishing the documentation in the sta
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I have not been aggressive about backpatching documentation improvements
> into 7.3.1. Is that something I should check?
Probably in the future it would be good to put a minimal amount of work
in polishing the documentation in the stable branch.
> As I remember, we didn'
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
> > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
> > will not be required.
>
> That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
> du
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a
> rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my
> only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning
> instead of this evening, just want to make sure tha
Bruce Momjian writes:
> How do you do that? Do you manually reformat the whole file after you
> generate it, or do you just cut-paste the new release info into
> /HISTORY so the old manual formatting remains? It did line break badly.
I put in the changes I had in mind and reformatted it, so as
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
> pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
> will not be required.
That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
dump/restore will not be required. ;-) In
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I have prepared the 7.3 CVS branch in preparation of a 7.3.1 release
> soon. Please check it.
It would be of advantage if it were announced to the development group
ahead of time when a minor release is planned, so work can be planned
better. It is certainly extremely cl
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 01:49, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Looks like they've caught up on a lot of our features. I have to say I
> appreciate them adding SERIAL as an alias for AUTO_INCREMENT. Perhaps we
> should return the favour? :)
Well, it's not the same as PostgreSQL's serial (which is
scott.marlowe wrote:
> > I wasn't sure how insecure SSL2 was, and whether it allowed you to
> > authenticate without a password or something.
>
> SSL2 seems to get a lot of votes for being broken in ways that cannot be
> fixed because they aren't simple buffer overflows. see:
>
> http://www.lne
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > >
> > > >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> > > >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> > > >
> At this point, all the SSL2 problems are conjecture on my part, which
> I
> don't understand. I hesitate to do anything until someone really
> knowledgeable can comment. Re-enabling SSL2 as part of 7.3.1 makes
> sense until we can get a definative answer on the risks involved.
I'm not an expert,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> > >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> > >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> > >a new major version number for thi
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > My question is whether it is safe to be making this change in a minor
> > > release? Does it work with 7.3 to 7.3.1 combinations? My other
> > > question is, if SSLv2 isn't secure, couldn't a client say they only
> > > sup
> > Wow, which part of "A TLS/SSL connection established with these methods
> > will understand the SSLv2, SSLv3, and TLSv1 protocol" are you finiding
> > particularly confusing? As nate explained to you, and the man page
> > section I commited states, TLSv1_method *only* supports TLS connections
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
> > > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
> >
> > Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you wan
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date
> > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the
>
> Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it?
Just curious as to w
Patrick Macdonald wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:43:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Actually, if you don't mind grabbing a copy of pg_filedump --- see
> > >> http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/tools.html
> >
> > > Has t
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > OK, I see from your commit message:
> >
> > From the SSL_CTX_new man page:
> >
> > "SSLv23_method(void), SSLv23_server_method(void), SSLv23_client_method(void)
> >
> > A TLS/SSL connection establishe
If it's all, perhaps we should reword as:
... has a new major version number for this release and will require
recompilation of client code.
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 14:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> > up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
>
> Plenty...
>
> The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one
> factual mistake tha
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > My question is whether it is safe to be making this change in a minor
> > release? Does it work with 7.3 to 7.3.1 combinations? My other
> > question is, if SSLv2 isn't secure, couldn't a client say they only
> > support SSLv2, and hence break into the server? That wa
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Nathan Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, we break backward compatibility so people can't use SSL2 to
> > > > connect to the server. Backward compatibility to a broken protocol
> > > > isn't what I would cal
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> >A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
> >should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
> >a new major version number for this release, which may require
> >recompilation of c
Bruce Momjian writes:
>A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it
>should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has
>a new major version number for this release, which may require
>recompilation of client code in certain cases.
s/cert
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Plenty...
The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one
factual mistake that needs to be fixed. The HISTORY file nee
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Nathan Mueller wrote:
>
> > > Well, we break backward compatibility so people can't use SSL2 to
> > > connect to the server. Backward compatibility to a broken protocol
> > > isn't what I would call secure. Is that accurate?
> >
> > I suppose. As long
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has
> > > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ...
> > >
> > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> >
> > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fi
Greetings! Somewhere between 7.1 and 7.2, creating triggers on insert
to a view has been disallowed. The docs still report it as a
possibility -- see rules vs. triggers. Worse, we have a postgres
database relying on this feature for several years now. What can I
do? I suppose I could use a rul
Lee Kindness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a nagging feeling that somebody has at one point put together
> such a feature in a generic fashion... I thought there was a 'time
> machine' module in contrib!
contrib/spi/timetravel.*
I haven't ever tried it ...
regards,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> > up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
>
> Tarball looks good from here.
Great, put out a short techy announcement this
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
> - pgsql-announce gets the tech version for every release.
> - Marc's full contacts list get the major version notices in press
> format with a link to the tech version.
> - Marc's smaller techy contacts list (freshmeat, /. etc.) get a small
> press release w
Guys,
I've been asked by a colleague about methods to keep track of
'previous' contents of a table - i.e. changes made and a way of
getting back to a previous state. Now, I know INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
triggers to maintain an accompanying table is a way to do this. But, I
have a nagging feeling that
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Tarball looks good from here.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 December 2002 16:34
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
>
>
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>> Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> re
> I have made the change and am just building v7.3.1 right now ...
> should be
> available in a few minutes, and I'll announce it this evening as being
> available ... can you grab a copy and make sure that it works as
> expected?
It works fine for me.
--Nate
---(
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 08:53, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> > To: Robert Treat
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
> >
> >
> > On We
On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which
> are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a
> minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site
> (freshmeat, slashdot, etc.
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don'
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> > > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> > really news worthy ... :(
>
> I don't know, if yo
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> really news worthy ... :(
I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> > > To: Robert Treat
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
> > the websites getting updated or perhaps ge
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> > To: Robert Treat
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51
> To: Robert Treat
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > Is this going to be
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
> over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
> the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
> has been done?
No, we don't do
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone
over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like
the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated
has been done?
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:18, Marc G. Fournier wrote
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Nathan Mueller wrote:
> > Well, we break backward compatibility so people can't use SSL2 to
> > connect to the server. Backward compatibility to a broken protocol
> > isn't what I would call secure. Is that accurate?
>
> I suppose. As long as the incompatibilty is mentioned in
Jean-Michel POURE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a) Acceptance of Terms
>
> "We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add or remove
> portions of these terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective
> immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website
Andreas,
This would be better addressed to the hackers list, and I am forwarding
it on.
Dave
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 07:39, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all!
> I get the following error when trying to connect to a pg-7.3 database on
> Solaris
> I'm just curious: why do we need GBorg at all? Does it offer anything
> that SourceForge, or a similar service does not offer?
SAY NO TO SOURCEFORGE !
Please find enclosed some extracts from licensing terms
(http://sourceforge.net/tos/tos.php) :
a) Acceptance of Terms
"We reserve the right,
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:20, postgresql wrote:
> 2. I change the pg_hba.conf and set the auth_type from 'trust' to
> 'password'
>
> 3. Then I can not connect to server.
Try using 'md5' instead of 'password' in pg_hba.conf.
--
Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
LFIX Limited
---
Hi, all
I have installed the Postgresql 7.3 . But I think something is wrong with
authority.
I have made the following operations:
1. I enter the psql and run 'alter user postgres with password
'postgres''
2. I change the pg_hba.conf and set the auth_type from 'trust' to
'password'
The reason I favour a GBorg is that VA Linux (who own sourceforge) have yet
to turn in a profit and so maylook to trim some of it's assets in order to
improve profitability at some point in the future.
I think it would be a bad move to shift everything to sourceforge, only to
find that a year or m
Tom Lane wrote:
Janardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you we
79 matches
Mail list logo
