Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
Okay, here is version two of the refactoring patch that documents that
the with-space version is deprecated but still accepted.
The feature patch is not affected by this and so I am not attaching a
new version of that.
I've committed this without
2014-06-29 21:09 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT
instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough
for
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT
instead CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough
for breaking compatibility?
How is compatibility broken? The
On 06/23/2014 06:45 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com
mailto:vik.fear...@dalibo.com:
On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule
pavel.steh...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property
CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used CONNECTION LIMIT in
documentation. But CONNECTION LIMIT is still supported, but it is not
documented. So
On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property
CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously used CONNECTION LIMIT in
documentation. But CONNECTION LIMIT is
2014-06-23 18:39 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com:
On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property
CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace previously
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
On 06/23/2014 06:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I found only one problem - first patch introduce a new property
CONNECTION_LIMIT and replace
Hello
I returned to review this patch after sleeping - and I have to say, these
patches doesn't break a compatibility.
This feature has two patches:
createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1-1.patch and
database_attributes.v2-1.patch. First patch do some cleaning in gram rules
a CREATE DATABASE
Hello
I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com
Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT instead
CONNECTION LIMIT? Is decreasing parser size about 1% good enough for
breaking
Second question related to second patch:
Must be new syntax ALLOW_CONNECTIONS? Should not be (ENABLE | DISABLE)
CONNECTION ? This doesn't need any new keyword.
Regards
Pavel
2014-06-21 22:11 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
I am looking
On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com
Thank you for looking at this.
Is any reason or is acceptable incompatible change CONNECTION_LIMIT
instead
On 06/21/2014 10:21 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Second question related to second patch:
Must be new syntax ALLOW_CONNECTIONS?
It doesn't *have* to be called that, but that's what the corresponding
column in pg_database is called so why add confusion? (Actually, it's
called datallowconn but
2014-06-21 23:14 GMT+02:00 Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com:
On 06/21/2014 10:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Hello
I am looking createdb_alterdb_grammar_refactoring.v1.patch
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53868e57.3030...@dalibo.com
Thank you for looking at this.
Is any
On 05/26/2014 08:19 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 05/26/2014 07:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such
database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to
prevent a race is worth its keep.
On 05/26/2014 07:10 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such
database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to
prevent a race is worth its keep.
+1 on the nannyism, and +1 to ignoring the
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I don't really object to doing an unlocked check for another such
database, but I'm not convinced that additional locking to try to
prevent a race is worth its keep.
+1 on the nannyism, and +1 to ignoring the race.
Thanks,
Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Which lead us to the question: you need to connect to the database to
modify it, don't you? then, how do you change ALLOW CONNECTIONS to
true?
You can ALTER DATABASE from anywhere.
Perhaps it'd be wise
On 5/24/14, 8:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Vik Fearingvik.fear...@dalibo.com writes:
On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Which lead us to the question: you need to connect to the database to
modify it, don't you? then, how do you change ALLOW CONNECTIONS to
true?
You can ALTER DATABASE
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
On 5/24/14, 8:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps it'd be wise to have a safety check to disallow turning off
datallowconn for the last connectable database? Although it couldn't be
bulletproof due to race conditions, so maybe that'd just be nannyism.
BTW, I
We try to tell our clients not to update the catalogs directly, but
there are at least two instances where it's not possible to do otherwise
(pg_database.datistemplate and .datallowconn). This patch aims to
remedy that.
For example, it is now possible to say
ALTER DATABASE d ALLOW
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if
there are existing connections or terminate said connections. I don't
agree with that because there is no harm in connecting to a template
database
On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if
there are existing connections or terminate said connections. I don't
agree with that because there is
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
On 05/24/2014 12:03 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
It was suggested to me that these options should either error out if
there are existing
24 matches
Mail list logo
