Re: ALTER SYSTEM between upgrades
> On 14 Jul 2020, at 01:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am creating a new thread to discuss the question raised by Alvaro of > how many ALTER SYSTEM settings are lost during major upgrades. Do we > properly document that users should migrate their postgresql.conf _and_ > postgresql.auto.conf files during major upgrades? I personally never > thought of this until now. Transferring postgresql.conf is discussed to some degree in the documentation for pg_upgrade: 11. Restore pg_hba.conf If you modified pg_hba.conf, restore its original settings. It might also be necessary to adjust other configuration files in the new cluster to match the old cluster, e.g. postgresql.conf. .. as well as upgrading via pg_dumpall: 4. Restore your previous pg_hba.conf and any postgresql.conf modifications. One can argue whether those bulletpoints are sufficient for stressing the importance, but it's at least mentioned. There is however no mention of postgresql.auto.conf which clearly isn't helping anyone, so we should fix that. Taking that a step further, maybe we should mention additional config files which could be included via include directives? There are tools out there who avoid changing the users postgresql.conf by injecting an include directive instead; they might've placed the included file alongside postgresql.conf. cheers ./daniel
Documentation Issue?
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/tutorial-join.html Description: The documentation at https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/tutorial-join.html shows this query: SELECT * FROM weather, cities WHERE city = name; And then presents the following query as "an alternate form" that is "not as commonly used as the one above": SELECT * FROM weather INNER JOIN cities ON (weather.city = cities.name); Isn't that backwards? Isn't the first query the old ANSI-89 syntax? Shouldn't we be using then newer "INNER JOIN" syntax?
Re: Transaction Management
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:46:59AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/plpgsql-transactions.html > Description: > > Hello, > > We are looking to use transaction management and have run into a limitation > when the procedure is security definer. There doesn't appear to be any > reference to this in the > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-transactions.html so we cannot > see when the limitation is lifted. > > Are you able to clarify the situation with this between PG11, 12 and 13? We > are hoping the limitation is lifted as we cannot see what the reason for the > limitation is. You are going to need to be more specific if you want help, and this doesn't seem like a documentation problem either. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
