[PATCHES] ALTER TYPE RENAME

2007-09-28 Thread Petr Jelinek
Hi, I noticed we don't have ALTER TYPE foo RENAME TO bar command which would be handy for me especially for enum types. So I wrote this little patch (including very brief doc) which adds above syntax. It basically just does some checks and calls existing TypeRename function which is used for re

[PATCHES] Add chklocale.c to msvc build

2007-09-28 Thread Petr Jelinek
Hi, attached patch adds chklocale.c to pgportfiles in Mkvcbuild perl module (not really worth the .diff :)) This fixes MSVC build (see buildfarm errors with unresolved reference for _pg_get_encoding_from_locale). -- Regards Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS) Index: Mkvcbuild.pm ==

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Add function for quote_qualified_identifier?

2007-09-28 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 9/29/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone every asked for this functionality? I searched the list archives for previous mentions of the topic, and didn't find any. So the answer to your question is "yes", but so far it seems to be just me. Cheers, BJ

Re: [PATCHES] too many variants of relation_open

2007-09-28 Thread Neil Conway
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:02 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Well, yes it could, but why? Keeping them separate looks slightly more > readable to me, and the change could break a lot of external modules for > no good reason. I agree: it also complicates the common case (calling relation_open() a

Re: [PATCHES] pgcrypto: fix for broken solaris openssl, v03

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > solaris openssl refuses to handle keys longer than 128bits. > ... > So something like the current patch should be still applied > as a near-term fix. Applied to HEAD and 8.2. I wasn't sure if there was interest in patching further back, or if the patch

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Is there any reason not to just do this on *all* platforms, and get rid >> of all the #ifdefs? > Yes, (see the comment in the code). We stat the private key on *nix to > ensure it hasn't changed underneath us which can't be done usi

Re: [PATCHES] Hash Index Build Patch

2007-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Tom Raney wrote: > Hello All, > > We have prepared a patch (against CVS HEAD)for the TODO item: > * Hash >-Durin

Re: [PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marshall, Steve wrote: >> This is probably not a big problem, since TCL was not commonly compiled >> with multithreading enabled prior to 8.4. However, perhaps there should >> be a warning in the documentation on PL/TCL directing users to avoid >> linkin

Re: [PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marshall, Steve wrote: > >The recent TCL patch assumed Tcl_NotifierProcs.initNotifierProc > >was added in TCL 8.2: > >In fact it was added in 8.4 so I have modified the CVS with > >the following patch. > > I confirmed this against the 8.2.5 release. Sorry I did not notice that > when I initiall

Re: [PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Matt Newell wrote: > On Friday 28 September 2007 14:04, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > ** 178,184 > >* within Postgres, but we implement all the functions for completeness. > >* We can only fix this with Tcl >= 8.2, when Tcl_SetNotifier() appeared. > >*/ > > ! #if HAVE_TCL_VERSION(8,2) >

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Add function for quote_qualified_identifier?

2007-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > "Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Patch includes documentation and new regression tests. While I was in > > there I also added regression tests for quote_ident(), which appeared > > to be absent. > > This seems rather pointless, since it's equivalent to > quot

Re: [PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Matt Newell
On Friday 28 September 2007 14:04, Bruce Momjian wrote: > ** 178,184 >* within Postgres, but we implement all the functions for completeness. >* We can only fix this with Tcl >= 8.2, when Tcl_SetNotifier() appeared. >*/ > ! #if HAVE_TCL_VERSION(8,2) You missed the 8.2 in the comme

Re: [PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Marshall, Steve
>The recent TCL patch assumed Tcl_NotifierProcs.initNotifierProc >was added in TCL 8.2: >In fact it was added in 8.4 so I have modified the CVS with >the following patch. I confirmed this against the 8.2.5 release. Sorry I did not notice that when I initially created the patch. While the patch

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Hrrm. Obviously, I need to go sleep now. Sorry about that. >> >> But it'd be nice to get rid of all those #ifdef blocks.. > > See the attached revision. This is untested as I don't have a linux box > to hand, but I believe it's right. Ignore that - I m

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Hrrm. Obviously, I need to go sleep now. Sorry about that. > > But it'd be nice to get rid of all those #ifdef blocks.. See the attached revision. This is untested as I don't have a linux box to hand, but I believe it's right. /D Index: src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure.c

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Magnus Hagander
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> Dave Page wrote: Dave Page wrote: > I did stumble across this text on a mailing list in response to someone > with a similar problem in some JNI code. I know little of the OpenSSL > API, but perhaps it rings bells wi

[PATCHES] TCL fix in HEAD

2007-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
The recent TCL patch assumed Tcl_NotifierProcs.initNotifierProc was added in TCL 8.2: #if HAVE_TCL_VERSION(8,2) /* * Override the functions in the Notifier subsystem. See comments above. */ { Tcl_NotifierProcs notifier;

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> Dave Page wrote: I did stumble across this text on a mailing list in response to someone with a similar problem in some JNI code. I know little of the OpenSSL API, but perhaps it rings bells with you before I spend my

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Magnus Hagander
Dave Page wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> I did stumble across this text on a mailing list in response to someone >>> with a similar problem in some JNI code. I know little of the OpenSSL >>> API, but perhaps it rings bells with you before I spend my evening >>> trying to figure i

[PATCHES] msvc >= VC7 understands __FUNCTION__

2007-09-28 Thread Hannes Eder
Hi, Starting from version VC7 msvc supports __FUNCTION__, so I think this could be enabled in pg_config.h.win32, see attached diff. -Hannes *** ../pgsql-cvshead/src/include/pg_config.h.win32 Mon Apr 16 20:39:19 2007 --- src/include/pg_config.h.win32 Fri Sep 28 22:32:50 2007 ***

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Dave Page wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> I did stumble across this text on a mailing list in response to someone >> with a similar problem in some JNI code. I know little of the OpenSSL >> API, but perhaps it rings bells with you before I spend my evening >> trying to figure it out? > > OK, I think

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Dave Page wrote: > I did stumble across this text on a mailing list in response to someone > with a similar problem in some JNI code. I know little of the OpenSSL > API, but perhaps it rings bells with you before I spend my evening > trying to figure it out? OK, I think I've figured out a fix. Wor

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: Doesn't really matter. Even if we were willing to hack our own client apps like that (which I'm not), we can *not* transfer such a requirement onto every libpq-using application. It's just not acceptable. *We're* not tran

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Doesn't really matter. Even if we were willing to hack our own client >> apps like that (which I'm not), we can *not* transfer such a requirement >> onto every libpq-using application. It's just not acceptable. > *We're* not transfering

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: Is it possible to use GNUTLS on Windows? No, I don't think so. I didn't think we accepted Martijn's(?) patch for it anyway? This mess might make that worth revisiting, if it can be used on Windows. See http://josefsson.org/gnutls4win/ cheers andrew --

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Marko Kreen wrote: On 9/28/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Then I think I'd rather disable use of client certs for the offending openssl versions in libpq, or let the apps die and refer the customers to the openssl people to l

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Marko Kreen
On 9/28/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Then I think I'd rather disable use of client certs for the offending > >> openssl versions in libpq, or let the apps die and refer the customers > >> to the openssl people to lobb

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Then I think I'd rather disable use of client certs for the offending openssl versions in libpq, or let the apps die and refer the customers to the openssl people to lobby them for a sane solution. If this were 8.0 I

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Then I think I'd rather disable use of client certs for the offending >> openssl versions in libpq, or let the apps die and refer the customers >> to the openssl people to lobby them for a sane solution. > If this were 8.0 I'd agre

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Dave Page wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Dave Page wrote: I believe we just didn't notice it until now because the older Mingw builds use the MSVC 6.0 runtimes which just happened to be compatible with the OpenSSL binary builds (we're now using 8.0), in addition to whic

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Dave Page wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >>> I believe we just didn't notice it until now because the older Mingw >>> builds use the MSVC 6.0 runtimes which just happened to be compatible >>> with the OpenSSL binary builds (we're now using 8.0), in addition to >>> which there ar

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Then I think I'd rather disable use of client certs for the offending openssl versions in libpq, or let the apps die and refer the customers to the openssl people to lobby them for a sane solution. If this were 8.0 I'd agree, but thats not a nice solution for those alrea

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Dave Page wrote: I believe we just didn't notice it until now because the older Mingw builds use the MSVC 6.0 runtimes which just happened to be compatible with the OpenSSL binary builds (we're now using 8.0), in addition to which there are relativ

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Dave Page wrote: I believe we just didn't notice it until now because the older Mingw builds use the MSVC 6.0 runtimes which just happened to be compatible with the OpenSSL binary builds (we're now using 8.0), in addition to which there are relatively few people using

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: I believe we just didn't notice it until now because the older Mingw builds use the MSVC 6.0 runtimes which just happened to be compatible with the OpenSSL binary builds (we're now using 8.0), in addition to which there are relatively few people using client-side certs I'd

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The server doesn't seem to be affected, but the attached patch fixes the problem for the client apps. Unfortunately it must be included in the app itself, and not libpq. This is pretty much in the category of "they've got to be kidding".

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The server doesn't seem to be affected, but the attached patch fixes the problem for the client apps. Unfortunately it must be included in the app itself, and not libpq. This is pretty much in the category of "they've got to be ki

[PATCHES] pgcrypto: fix for broken solaris openssl, v03

2007-09-28 Thread Marko Kreen
solaris openssl refuses to handle keys longer than 128bits. * aes will crash on longer keys * blowfish will silently cut the key which can result data corruption to fix it: - test errors from AES functions - bf errors cannot be tested, do test encryption - change aes compat macros to static fu

Re: [PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The server doesn't seem to be affected, but the attached patch fixes the > problem for the client apps. Unfortunately it must be included in the > app itself, and not libpq. This is pretty much in the category of "they've got to be kidding". I recommend sitt

[PATCHES] OpenSSL Applink

2007-09-28 Thread Dave Page
On Windows the OpenSSL guys have included code with 0.9.8 and above to allow OpenSSL to work correctly regardless of the MSVC runtime libraries that have been used with the host application. This has become noticable with the MSVC++ build in which any client apps that connect using libpq with a cli

Re: [PATCHES] too many variants of relation_open

2007-09-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Jaime Casanova wrote: > I can understand why we have relation_openrv and try_relation_open, > but relation_open_nowait can be merged with relation_open. Well, yes it could, but why? Keeping them separate looks slightly more readable to me, and the change could break a lot of external modules for n

[PATCHES] too many variants of relation_open

2007-09-28 Thread Jaime Casanova
Hi, I can understand why we have relation_openrv and try_relation_open, but relation_open_nowait can be merged with relation_open. Or there is something i'm missing? attached is a patch that do the merge. -- regards, Jaime Casanova "Programming today is a race between software engineers strivi