[GENERAL] Re: Re: grant privileges to a database [URGENT]

El Mié 31 Ene 2001 21:32, Mike Miller escribió: > MySQL has this feature. I run a multi-user system and require shared MySQL > And PostgreSQL dbs. I have mysql fine. Users have their DBs and can only > access their DBs... but theres no real way to do this in Postgres. I can > restrict tables,

Re: [GENERAL] Re: grant privileges to a database

El Mié 31 Ene 2001 18:32, Dan Wilson escribió: > You can do this in phpPgAdmin... it's a hack because it just pulls in all > the objects/relations and runs a single grant statement on them, but it > works. It puts together a query like the following: > > GRANT ALL ON table1, table2, table3, view1

Re: [GENERAL] Re: grant privileges to a database

El Mié 31 Ene 2001 15:53, Michael Fork escribió: > This is the closest thing to what you want: > > GRANT ALL ON table TO user; > > (see http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.0/user/sql-grant.htm) Yes, I'm aware of that. That's why I'm asking for an opinion of the developers on this issue

[GENERAL] Re: grant privileges to a database

El Mar 30 Ene 2001 10:08, Martin A. Marques escribió: > Is there a way to grant a user with all privileges on a database? Something > like Informixs GRANT dba? OK, I see that no one responded (except one person how made a personal responce), so I'll add a bit to it. I seem to be

[HACKERS] Re: Talking about Solaris 7

El Lun 29 Ene 2001 07:57, Alexander Klimov escribió: > Hi. > > I had the same problem and sent bug report to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > some time ago (20 Sep 2000), so, hopefully, they will fix it eventualy. > > There is a workaround for it. The comment in ssl/include/openssl/des.h > said: `You should no

[HACKERS] Re: BLOB HOWTO??

El Dom 28 Ene 2001 16:59, Olivier PRENANT escribió: > > Beeing very impressed by TOAST, I wonder how I can insert BLOB from a flat > file. > > It seems quite easy with php; But how can I do it from psql?? I think you mean that it seems easy, because I haven't been able to understand it (always t

[HACKERS] Talking about Solaris 7

I have a problem with the compilation of Postgres on Solaris with ssl support. The error I get is this when executing make: gcc -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/ssl//include -I../../../src/include -c nodeTidscan.c -o nodeTidscan.ogcc -g -W

[HACKERS] Re: PHP - Postgres large object functions

El Mié 24 Ene 2001 17:56, Ned Lilly escribió: > Adam, FYI, according to Rasmus Lerdorf, your patches have been > committed. From the changelog: > > 2001-01-18 Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * ext/pgsql/pgsql.c > ext/pgsql/php_pgsql.h: >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] re-instalation

El Sáb 20 Ene 2001 18:43, Peter Eisentraut escribió: > Martin A. Marques writes: > > > > Any ideas why those pg* tables are there? > > > > > > Those are system tables created and used by pgAccess. > > > > They never apeared before. > > You pro

[HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] re-instalation

El Vie 19 Ene 2001 22:32, Brett W. McCoy escribió: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Martin A. Marques wrote: > > I had to re-compile and re-install postgresql-7.1-beta1. > > I changed the directory where it was installed from /usr/local/pgsql to > > /dbs/postgres/. After re-install

Re: [GENERAL] re-instalation

El Vie 19 Ene 2001 17:36, Len Morgan escribió: > > pga_forms | table | postgres > > pga_queries | table | postgres > > pga_reports | table | postgres > > pga_schema | table | postgres > > pga_scripts | table | postgres > >(8 rows) > > > > > >Any ideas why those pg* tables ar

[GENERAL] re-instalation

I had to re-compile and re-install postgresql-7.1-beta1. I changed the directory where it was installed from /usr/local/pgsql to /dbs/postgres/. After re-installing I copied the data/ directory that was under the old instalation to where I have the new instalation. After a bit of work I got it t

Re: [HACKERS] compiling 7.1-beta1

El Jue 18 Ene 2001 15:15, Tom Lane escribió: > > > The other question is if I have to do something special (dump and > > restore) when upgrading from 7.1-beta1 to 7.1-final (or any of the other > > betas)? > > You will need an initdb to go from beta1 to beta3. Sorry about that; > we try to avoid

[HACKERS] compilation error

I'm trying to compile postgres on a Solaris 7 SPARC machine and I get this error: make[4]: Leaving directory `/space/pruebas/postgresql-7.1beta1/src/interfaces/libpq' gcc -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -fPIC -I../../../src/include -I../../../src/interfaces/libpq -c pgtc

[HACKERS] compiling 7.1-beta1

I'm compiling beta 1 of 7.1 and I have a par of questions. First I see things like this in the compilation output: gcc -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wno-error -I/usr/local/ssl//include -I../../../src/include -c analyze.c -o analyze.o analyze.c: In function `transformIns

[HACKERS] problems with pg_geqo

I'm trying to retrieve a big query (bah, not so big, but with a dozen of joins) and all I get is this: 010112.17:22:06.050 [5387] DEBUG: Rel trabajos_docentes: Pages: 3 --> 2. 010112.17:30:48.458 [5412] DEBUG: geqo_params: ga parameter file '/var/lib/pgsql/data/pg_geqo' does not exist or per

[HACKERS] Re: still no log

El Mié 10 Ene 2001 20:55, Alfonso Peniche escribió: > Existe un archivo llamado postmaster.init en el directorio de postgres, en > ese directorio le especificas si quieres que use o no los logs. Ya > revisaste ese archivo? No existe tal archivo, pero ya lo sulocione. Gracias de todas formas. ;-)

[HACKERS] Re: still no log

El Mié 10 Ene 2001 21:07, escribiste: > "Martin A. Marques" wrote: > >Sorry for the insistence, but after looking and looking again, I can't > > find out why the postgres logs are empty. The postgres database is up > > and working > > > >g

[HACKERS] still no log

Sorry for the insistence, but after looking and looking again, I can't find out why the postgres logs are empty. The postgres database is up and working great, but nothing is getting logged. I'm on a RedHat Linux (6.0 with lot of upgrades) postgres 7.0.3 from rpm (downoaded from the postgres ftp

[HACKERS] Re: psql -l bug

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Olivier PRENANT wrote: > Hi, > > I just recompiled 7.1 beta from current CVS today. > > I pg_dump'ed my 7.02 db's and reloaded it on 7.1 with no probs apart that > psql -l shows 2 template0 and template1... > > Template0 and template1 belong to user postgres and to an oth

[GENERAL] Re: How to print explain using PHP

El Mar 09 Ene 2001 16:30, Karel Zak escribió: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Martin A. Marques wrote: > > I'm working with PHP and Postgres, and if I try to do an EXPLAIN query, > > with PHP, to the postgres backend the output goes to the error_log file > > of apache and I don&#

[HACKERS] How to print explain using PHP

I'm working with PHP and Postgres, and if I try to do an EXPLAIN query, with PHP, to the postgres backend the output goes to the error_log file of apache and I don't know how to redirect that output to the browser. Does anyone know how I can do this? Saludos... ;-) -- System Administration: I

[HACKERS] problems with query

Hi, I have this table on postgres-7.0.3 CREATE TABLE ciudad ( id_ciudadSERIAL, ciudad VARCHAR(60) ); GRANT ALL ON ciudad TO martin; CREATE INDEX ciudad_idx ON ciudad (ciudad); And I try to insert a value using this query: INSERT INTO ciudad (ciudad) VALUES ("Villa Guil

Re: [HACKERS] Why vacuum?

El Mié 13 Dic 2000 22:24, xuyifeng escribió: > I have this nasty problem too, in early time, I don't know the problem, > but we used it for a while, than we found our table growing too fast > without insert any record( we use update), this behaviour most like M$ > MSACCESS database I had used a l

Re: [HACKERS] Why vacuum?

El Mié 13 Dic 2000 16:41, bpalmer escribió: > I noticed the other day that one of my pg databases was slow, so I ran > vacuum on it, which brought a question to mind: why the need? I looked > at my oracle server and we aren't doing anything of the sort (that I can > find), so why does pg need

[HACKERS] docs

Hi, Where can I find documentation on WAL, TOAST and how to configure the pg_hda.conf file? Saludos... ;-) -- System Administration: It's a dirty job, but someone told I had to do it. - Martín Marqués

Re: [GENERAL] No postgres on Solaris

El Lun 11 Dic 2000 12:07, Martin A. Marques escribió: > Hi, > I have been using Postgres-7.0.2 on Solaris 8 for the past few months, and > was about to upgrade to 7.1-test, and after following carefully the docs, I > get this: > > postgres@ultra31:~ > /usr/local/pgsql/bin

[HACKERS] No postgres on Solaris

Hi, I have been using Postgres-7.0.2 on Solaris 8 for the past few months, and was about to upgrade to 7.1-test, and after following carefully the docs, I get this: postgres@ultra31:~ > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -D /usr/local/pgsql/data IpcSemaphoreCreate: semget(key=5432004, num=17, 0360

Re: [HACKERS] v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ...

On Thursday 07 December 2000 18:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Ideally (IMHO) we'd build the documentation right in place when making the > distribution tarball, i.e., broken docs, no release. I'm not sure how to > usefully extrapolate that to the snapshot builds, though. > > Another thing we sh

Re: [HACKERS] v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ...

On Thursday 07 December 2000 16:48, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Okay, since I haven't gotten word back on where to find the docs for v7.1, > it still contains those for v7.0, but I just put up beta1 tarballs in the > /pub/dev directory ... can someone take a look at these before we announce > them

Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version

On Tuesday 05 December 2000 18:03, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the > > BSD? > > its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions, > GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many ti

Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version

On Tuesday 05 December 2000 16:23, Martin A. Marques wrote: > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the > BSD? PG inc would still be able to do there money giving support (just like > IBM, HP and Compaq are doing there share with Linux), without

Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version

On Sunday 03 December 2000 21:49, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where > someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this I have missed that part as well. > ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-Octo

Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version

On Sunday 03 December 2000 12:41, mlw wrote: > Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > > a few flaws... ;) > > While I have not contributed anything to Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version

On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc > > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After > > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would > > allow others to

Re: [HACKERS] Crash during WAL recovery?

On Wednesday 22 November 2000 02:36, Don Baccus wrote: > > >More generally, a lot of the PG documentation could use the attention > >of a professional copy editor --- and I'm sad to say that the parts > >contributed by native English speakers aren't necessarily any cleaner > >than the parts contri

[HACKERS] WAL and offline backups

One question: will Postgres 7.1 be able to do offline backups? -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall - Martín Marqués email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Santa Fe - Argentinah

Re: [GENERAL] PHPBuilder article -- Postgres vs MySQL

On Lun 13 Nov 2000 13:22, Robert D. Nelson wrote: > > Still...Regardless of what database they're running, either their > abstraction layer is shit or their queries really need optimized. Is that > perhaps why, even at 5 clients, the page views he shows never went > significantly above 10/sec? In

[HACKERS] Postgres article

Did someone read bout this? http://www.angelfire.com/nv/aldev/pgsql/GreatBridge.html Saludos... :-) -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall - Martín Marqués email: [EMAIL PROTE

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Mié 08 Nov 2000 19:34, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, maybe. But is it worth the trouble? Hard to believe anyone else > did the same thing. > > If socklen_t exists, it's presumably the right thing to use, so if we > just hardwire "void -> socklen_t", I think it'd be OK. If we're wrong, > we'll he

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Mié 08 Nov 2000 18:17, Tom Lane wrote: > > I guess we not only need a hack, but a nastygram or three sent off to > the Solaris people. void *? What in heavens name were they thinking? > That essentially means you've got no parameter type checking at all > on calls to accept() --- or any other

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Mié 08 Nov 2000 18:01, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, that tells the tale all right: the critical lines are > > typedef uint32_tsocklen_t; > > typedef void*Psocklen_t; > > extern int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, Psocklen_t); > > What brainless idiot decided it

[HACKERS] still with problems to run configure

OK, it's me again with news on how I'm doing (bad) with the compilation of PostgreSQL 7.1 alpha (I think I'll call that way the cvsup download). I still can't finish the execution of the configure script (still don't know why), and I could compile 7.0.2 perfectly on the same SPARC. What could be

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Lun 06 Nov 2000 18:25, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Martin A. Marques writes: > > Is there any kind of info you would need that I could provide? If you > > want I can send the config.log, output of the configure execution, etc. > > Even the socket.h and the types.h

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Lun 06 Nov 2000 13:28, Tom Lane wrote: > "Martin A. Marques" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hmm ... is it possible that his compiler distinguishes between > >> "extern int foo(...)" and "extern foo(...)" ? Why don't we > &

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Lun 06 Nov 2000 12:06, Tom Lane wrote: > "Martin A. Marques" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, mine looks like: > > extern int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, Psocklen_t); > > > > This is what I have in the configure: > > extern accept

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Vie 03 Nov 2000 20:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Martin A. Marques writes: > > checking types of arguments for accept()... configure: error: could not > > determine argument types > > According to the documentation for Solaris 7 it should be 'accept(int, >

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Sáb 04 Nov 2000 18:54, Tom Lane wrote: > "Martin A. Marques" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Vie 03 Nov 2000 22:16, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm, how do your system's include files declare accept()? > > > > The config.log file starts given f

Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

On Vie 03 Nov 2000 22:16, Tom Lane wrote: > > Hm, how do your system's include files declare accept()? > > It would help to see the part of the config.log file that shows the > errors configure gets while trying to find workable input types for > accept(). The config.log file starts given fails a

[HACKERS] problems with configure

I'm trying to compile the CVS (fresh download) of postgres and I get this running the configure script: checking for tzname... yes checking for union semun... no checking for struct sockaddr_un... yes checking for int timezone... yes checking types of arguments for accept()... configure: error:

Re: [HACKERS] status applications

On Jue 02 Nov 2000 15:27, you wrote: > Martin A. Marques writes: > > Are there any status and mode applications for postgres? I mean, an > > application that will tell me the status of the server at the moment, > > and an app to start and stop postgres. > > pg_ctl Yes

Re: [HACKERS] status applications

On Mié 01 Nov 2000 20:57, Martin A. Marques wrote: Seeing that nobody responded to my questions, here I go. ;-) I think one of the poor partes about postgres is the administration tools. I am not a PostgreSQL hacker (would like to be one) so I don know if there are things like user threads

[HACKERS] status applications

Are there any status and mode applications for postgres? I mean, an application that will tell me the status of the server at the moment, and an app to start and stop postgres. Does postgres have "administration mode" like a mode to make backups on, without threads connected? Thanks!!! -- "

[HACKERS] BAR now and with 7.1

I wanna know how BAR (Backup And Restore) is done now (PostgreSQL 7.0.2) and how it will be done when PostgreSQL 7.1 comes out. What I want is a total recover of data up to the time that the database got scratched. What I mean is: Certain people write to the database all day long. Every mid-nigh

Re: [HACKERS] WAL status & todo

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > Well, hopefully WAL will be ready for alpha testing in a few days. > Unfortunately > at the moment I have to step side from main stream to implement new file > naming, > the biggest todo for integration WAL into system. > > I would really appreciate any

RE: [HACKERS] backup and restore

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Mikheev, Vadim wrote: > > > Could this be added? I am willing to help with the coding. > > > > This is what Version 7.1 WAL is all about. > > There might be some help wanted in one of the possible backup methods: > > 1. a pg_dumpall restore, and a subsequent restore of

Re: [HACKERS] backup and restore

On Sun, 08 Oct 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This will be in 7.1 as WAL (write-ahead log). What does this exactly mean? Will this WAL be an equivalent of the logical log of Informix? Where will they be kept? In the database, as a file, or as either? Looks pretty good. All that is needed after th

Re: [HACKERS] backup and restore

On Mon, 02 Oct 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote: > "Martin A. Marques" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to know if postgres comes with some kind of backup > > application? I mean something that would do database backup and restore, > > something like info

[HACKERS] backup and restore

Hi, I would like to know if postgres comes with some kind of backup application? I mean something that would do database backup and restore, something like informix's ontape and logical logs. Thanks -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall -