Document format issues: characters are overlapping in the header of some tables
Hello, I'm reading this document PostgreSQL 12.2 Documentation(postgresql-12-A4.pdf) which I've downloaded from the official website www.postgresql.org. I found some format issues with the table headers in these pages, 1159,1160,1161,1162,1163,1164. In the table headers, some characters are overlapping and it's difficult to recognize the words. Regards, Ruihai
filter with json_agg(DISTINCT table.*) behaves differently
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/release-10-7.html Description: Following is our finding: Postgres query behaves differently in 2 version Specifically (json_agg(DISTINCT table_name.*) filter(where table_name is not null)) as table, . . . gives null record in 10.7 where it gives proper data in 10.6 Following is the version difference of postgres WORKING - PostgreSQL 10.6 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20140911 (Red Hat 4.8.3-9), 64-bit NOT WORKING - PostgreSQL 10.7 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.9.3, 64-bit
Re: Logical replication subscription owner
On 2020-Apr-15, PG Doc comments form wrote: > If the logical replication subscription is owned by a role that is not > allowed to login (for example, if the LOGIN privilege is removed after the > subscription is created) then the logical replication worker (which uses the > owner to connect to the database) will start to fail with this error > (repeated every 5 seconds), which is pretty much undocumented: > > FATAL: role "XXX" is not permitted to log in > LOG: background worker "logical replication worker" (PID X) exited with > exit code 1 > > You might want to include that error message in the docs, to ensure that web > searches for it bring the user to this documentation. I wonder if a better answer is to allow the connection when the REPLICATION priv is granted, ignoring the LOGIN prov. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: Logical replication subscription owner
Greetings, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2020-Apr-15, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > If the logical replication subscription is owned by a role that is not > > allowed to login (for example, if the LOGIN privilege is removed after the > > subscription is created) then the logical replication worker (which uses the > > owner to connect to the database) will start to fail with this error > > (repeated every 5 seconds), which is pretty much undocumented: > > > > FATAL: role "XXX" is not permitted to log in > > LOG: background worker "logical replication worker" (PID X) exited with > > exit code 1 > > > > You might want to include that error message in the docs, to ensure that web > > searches for it bring the user to this documentation. > > I wonder if a better answer is to allow the connection when the > REPLICATION priv is granted, ignoring the LOGIN prov. Erm, no, I wouldn't have thought that'd make sense- maybe someone specifically wants to stop allowing that role to login and they remove LOGIN? That REPLICATION would override that would surely be surprising and counter-intuitive.. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Add that changing the `argname` will raise exception in procedure/function
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-createprocedure.html Description: In https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-createprocedure.html you can add: "It is also not possible to change the argname. Trying to do so will raise an exception. If you want to do it - drop the procedure first." In https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-createfunction.html you can add: "It is also not possible to change the argname. Trying to do so will raise an exception. If you want to do it - drop the function first."
Re: terminology in example
Patch applied back to 9.5, thanks. --- On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 08:27:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 08:37:30AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 19:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > The attached patch fixes the problem. The regression tests also have > > > many mentions of "altitude." Should those be changed too? > > > > I don't think that is necessary. > > Names don't matter in the regression tests. > > Agreed. > > > > @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ CREATE VIEW cities AS > > > CREATE TABLE cities ( > > >name text, > > >population real, > > > - altitude int -- (in ft) > > > + elevation int -- (in ft) > > > ); > > > > The "int" should be aligned with the rest (delete one space). > > Fixed, thanks. > > -- > Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > > -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: Logical replication subscription owner
On 2020-Apr-22, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > I wonder if a better answer is to allow the connection when the > > REPLICATION priv is granted, ignoring the LOGIN prov. > > Erm, no, I wouldn't have thought that'd make sense- maybe someone > specifically wants to stop allowing that role to login and they remove > LOGIN? That REPLICATION would override that would surely be surprising > and counter-intuitive.. Well, I guess if somebody wants to stop replication, they can remove the REPLICATION priv. I had it in my mind that LOGIN was for regular (SQL-based) login, and REPLICATION was for replication login, and that they were orthogonal. You're saying that there's no way a role can have REPLICATION privs but no LOGIN. Is that sensible? -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: Logical replication subscription owner
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I had it in my mind that LOGIN was for regular (SQL-based) login, and > REPLICATION was for replication login, and that they were orthogonal. Yeah, that's what I would've expected. Otherwise, is REPLICATION without LOGIN useful at all? regards, tom lane
Re: Lack of detailed documentation
I wrote: > One thing that's sort of blocking any real progress on this is the > draconian space constraints imposed by the tabular format, which is > hurting us on a lot of these pages, not just this one. Alvaro did > some preliminary investigation towards finding a better way, > but nobody's tried to push that forward. I've been making an attempt to improve that situation, and along the way just pushed an expansion of the geometric-operator docs: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-geometry.html There's probably still some things to be desired, but it's a lot less fuzzy than before. One thing that surprised me is that I couldn't find any well-known name for what the * and / operators are doing; digging around on the net and in some dusty old math textbooks didn't yield any exact matches. I ended up adding footnotes with the actual computations, but I'm not very happy with that approach. Surely Lockhart[1] got this definition from someplace, though, and didn't invent it out of thin air. regards, tom lane [1] I'd supposed we could blame this stuff on Berkeley, but excavation in our git history shows it came in at https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=9e2a87b62db87fc4175b00dabfd26293a2d072fa ... sans documentation of course.
Re: Lack of detailed documentation
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:36 PM Tom Lane wrote: > One thing that surprised me is that I couldn't find any well-known > name for what the * and / operators are doing; digging around on > the net and in some dusty old math textbooks didn't yield any exact > matches. I ended up adding footnotes with the actual computations, > but I'm not very happy with that approach. Surely Lockhart[1] got this > definition from someplace, though, and didn't invent it out of thin air. > > I'd move the footnote indicator to: Available for point[a], box, path, circle. Available for point[b], box, path, circle. As the footnote only applies to that specific left operand type. Or maybe: Available for box, path, and circle. It is also defined for point [a] but it has no related physical meaning. David J.
Re: Lack of detailed documentation
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:18 PM David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:36 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> One thing that surprised me is that I couldn't find any well-known >> name for what the * and / operators are doing; digging around on >> the net and in some dusty old math textbooks didn't yield any exact >> matches. I ended up adding footnotes with the actual computations, >> but I'm not very happy with that approach. Surely Lockhart[1] got this >> definition from someplace, though, and didn't invent it out of thin air. >> >> > I'd move the footnote indicator to: > > Available for point[a], box, path, circle. > Available for point[b], box, path, circle. > > As the footnote only applies to that specific left operand type. > > Or maybe: > > Available for box, path, and circle. It is also defined for point [a] but > it has no related physical meaning. > Nevermind... David J.
Re: Lack of detailed documentation
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:36 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Surely Lockhart[1] got this > definition from someplace, though, and didn't invent it out of thin air. > I actually viewed quite a few YouTube math videos between then and now and looking at it now it seems familiar. It is basically treating the points as if they were a representation of complex numbers with x being real and y being imaginary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number (Multiplication and Division sections) David J.
Re: Lack of detailed documentation
"David G. Johnston" writes: > It is basically treating the points as if they were a representation of > complex numbers with x being real and y being imaginary. Hah! I was too focused on looking for definitions involving vectors, and didn't think of plain ol' complex numbers. But yes, that's exactly what it is. I'll go improve the docs. regards, tom lane
