Has anyone else taken a look at this? I thought I'd play around with the
system catalog and see if I couldn't put an ACL column into pg_attribute:
It ended up generating the following BKI line:
insert ( 1249 attacl 1034 -1 -1 18 1 -1 -1 f x i f f f t 0 _null_ )
And the ROW certainly
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:37:32AM -0600, kevin brintnall wrote:
Has anyone else taken a look at this? I thought I'd play around with the
system catalog and see if I couldn't put an ACL column into pg_attribute:
It ended up generating the following BKI line:
insert ( 1249 attacl
Hi!
I'm looking at a way to fix the issues with admin privileges on Win32
- specifically by finding a way to give up all admin stuff before the
server starts, when possible (and otherwise fail just as today).
I think I can do this. However, it is not possible to do this in a way
that's
NT4 is officially dead, IMHO no need for PostgreSQL to officially support it,
let's leave place for companies offering commercial postgresql versions to
work on it if they have enough customer requests.
BTW Win 2000 is more or less 6 years old now ...
Regards
Paolo
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
Umm, yes. You also need to add the column to the contents of
pg_attribute, give the attribute a number, increase the number of
attributes as stored in pg_class, update the #define that gives the
attribute count, change the macro that gives the
St Valentine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That module is writen in the C++ langguage, how can i connect it to
the PostgreSQL sources?
Convert it to C ;-) Seriously, I think this would be a major pain in
the neck to do --- there are various gotchas like the system headers not
being C++-clean. Why
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:04:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
Umm, yes. You also need to add the column to the contents of
pg_attribute, give the attribute a number, increase the number of
attributes as stored in pg_class, update the #define that
Hi,
Today I was playing with our test environment and noticed that if I delete a
PostgreSQL datafile (with cluster down) and bring up the database, It will
simple... come up :-/
I wonder if it shouldn't complain about the missing datafile before opening
the cluster... I don't know... Maybe
Bruno Almeida do Lago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Today I was playing with our test environment and noticed that if I delete
a
PostgreSQL datafile (with cluster down) and bring up the database, It will
simple... come up :-/
I wonder if it shouldn't
I'm looking at a way to fix the issues with admin privileges on
Win32
- specifically by finding a way to give up all admin stuff
before the
server starts, when possible (and otherwise fail just as today).
So this will let an admin startup Postgres ... I got a
question -- if it
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:00:49PM -0500, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
It sounds like worrying about this would be much more interesting on a
machine that is seeing both a fairly heavy IO load (meaning checkpoint
will both take longer and affect
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 15:26 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Anyway, since the proof is in the pudding, Simon and I will be working on
some demo code for different sampling methods so that we can debate
results rather than theory.
I enclose a patch for checking out block sampling. This is not
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 19:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you think?
I think it's not broken and doesn't need fixing. I have not seen any
groundswell of demand for moving the contrib stuff out of the public
schema. On the other hand, doing so
John,
Would it be reasonable for there to be a way for the super user to
grant access to load approved modules and/or C language functions?
I can't see a way to do this except individually, in which case the
superuser might as well load the functions. We *have* to be restrictive
about this
Hi Josh,
On Jan 13, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I can't see a way to do this except individually, in which case the
superuser might as well load the functions. We *have* to be
restrictive
about this because a C function can do anything, including overwriting
whatever parts of the
Folks,
I would like to understand how the simple
backend commands work.
After reading the How PostgreSQL
Processes a Query, I was wondering
Which command would be the easiest to begin with? (For a newbie of
course.)
Regards,
Gevik.
You should look at something like the LOCK table command. The following areas will help:src/backend/tcop/utility.csrc/backend/commands/lockcmds.csrc/backend/nodes/*funcs.csrc/backend/parser-Jonah
On 1/13/06, Gevik babakhani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I would like to understand
Simon,
It's also worth mentioning that for datatypes that only have an =
operator the performance of compute_minimal_stats is O(N^2) when values
are unique, so increasing sample size is a very bad idea in that case.
It may be possible to re-sample the sample, so that we get only one row
per
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
It's also worth mentioning that for datatypes that only have an =
operator the performance of compute_minimal_stats is O(N^2) when values
are unique, so increasing sample size is a very bad idea in that case.
Hmmm ... does ANALYZE check for UNIQUE
Hi,
From time to time people ask me if there is a way to customize
messages for constraints so they could be more informative to the
user...
Imagine something like:
create table foo (fld int4 check (fld 0));
message for constraint foo_fld_check on foo is 'fld field must contain
possitive
20 matches
Mail list logo
