* Tom Lane:
> I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
> surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
> current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
> surrogate pairs were specifically prohibited in UTF8 strings, because
>
"Erik Rijkers" writes:
> yes, I agree that's better; attached is that change.
Looks good, applied to HEAD and 9.0. (I also snuck in a couple of
cosmetic cleanups while I was looking at the file.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@p
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
> On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:08 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Even though the permissions on the child table aren't invovled at all if
> > queried through the parent..? The parent implicitly adds to the set of
> > privileges which are granted on the chil
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:08 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
> > I think there are perfectly good reasons to have different permissions
> > on parent and child tables. I don't see any reason to monkey around
> > with that.
>
> Even though the permissions o
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On sön, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
>> surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
>> current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
>> s
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
> surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
> current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
> surrogate pairs were specifically
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
> I think there are perfectly good reasons to have different permissions
> on parent and child tables. I don't see any reason to monkey around
> with that.
Even though the permissions on the child table aren't invovled at all if
queried through the pare
I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
surrogate pairs were specifically prohibited in UTF8 strings, because
of the security hazards
On Sun, August 22, 2010 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Erik Rijkers" writes:
>> If only for consistency, this patch adds the path info to that message.
>
> Seems reasonable, but speaking of consistency:
>
>> +#ifdef WIN32
>> +snprintf(WALFilePath, MAXPGPATH, "%s\\%s",
>> ar
On tis, 2010-08-17 at 20:04 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> What I'm thinking of is something like a warning if the permissions on
> the child don't match those of the parent when the relationship is
> created, or maybe forcibly setting the permissions on the child (with
> a
> NOTICE), so it's at lea
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > We often mention that we do vacuum freeze for anti-wraparound vacuum,
> > but not for pg_clog file removal, which is the primary trigger for
> > autovacuum vacuum freezing. I have added the attached documentation
> > patch for autovacuum_freeze_max_age;
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
>> to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail
>> by default". Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a
>> s
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
>> autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
>> was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
>> pg_stat_databas
On lör, 2010-08-21 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only thing that seems like it might need discussion is the name
> to give the datatype. My first instinct was pg_expr or pg_expression,
> but there are some cases where this doesn't exactly fit. In
> particular,
> pg_rewrite.ev_action conta
"Erik Rijkers" writes:
> If only for consistency, this patch adds the path info to that message.
Seems reasonable, but speaking of consistency:
> +#ifdef WIN32
> + snprintf(WALFilePath, MAXPGPATH, "%s\\%s",
> archiveLocation, exclusiveCleanupFileName);
> +#else
> +
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
> autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
> was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
> pg_stat_database.
> Was there any particular reason why this wasn't
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:03:32PM +0800, Quan Zongliang wrote:
> Sure, I agree.
> New patch attached. How about this?
Docs re-added. Please not to leave these out in future patches. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
S
Bruce Momjian writes:
> We often mention that we do vacuum freeze for anti-wraparound vacuum,
> but not for pg_clog file removal, which is the primary trigger for
> autovacuum vacuum freezing. I have added the attached documentation
> patch for autovacuum_freeze_max_age; back-patched to 9.0.
Th
Magnus Hagander escreveu:
> Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
> I've missed, making this a bad addition? :-)
>
Not that I know of. Good catch. ;)
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@po
Rob Wultsch wrote:
> For a documentation patch should this not be back ported to all
> relevant versions?
It is only a minor adjustment and I normally don't backpatch that.
---
>
> On 8/21/10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jos
Sure, I agree.
New patch attached. How about this?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:21:18 +0200
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:01, Quan Zongliang wrote:
> > Because Windows's CreateService has serial start-type:
> > SERVICE_AUTO_START
> > SERVICE_BOOT_START
> > SERVICE_DEMAND_START
>
(2010/08/22 0:20), Robert Haas wrote:
On Aug 20, 2010, at 8:27 PM, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
(2010/08/20 23:34), Robert Haas wrote:
2010/8/19 KaiGai Kohei:
I think our standard criteria for the inclusion of hooks is that you
must demonstrate that the hook can be used to do something interesting
that
I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
pg_stat_database.
Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
I've missed, ma
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler
> wrote:
>> on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
>> "postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
>> postgresql mailing lists... :-)
>>
>> most peo
24 matches
Mail list logo
