The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1186
Logged by: Gosen, Hitoshi
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 7.4
Operating system: linux 2.4.18
Description:Broken Index?
Details:
Hello All,
We are using PostgreSQL 7.4.2 for our w
little example of generating usesysid
create user test sysid 2147483647;
CREATE USER
create user test1;
CREATE USER
select * from pg_shadow;
usename | usesysid | usecreatedb | usesuper | usecatupd | passwd |
valuntil | useconfig
--+-+-+--+--
> And I have still a question:
> How to remove privileges of the nonexistent (removed) user?
I'm not sure it is even desirable?
There are 2 differents concepts:
- logins with a user name, password...
- sysids which is really an int.
a login must have a sysid, but a sysid may or may not corres
On Jul 1 2004, Stephan Szabo wrote:
Technically speaking, I believe the queries are simply invalid without the
presence of casts from the spec's standpoint.
Theoretically, I'd either expect both to give 0 rows (convert 3 into a
string and compare) or both to give 1 row (convert '003' to an integer
Hi,
I saw this behaviour in PostgreSQL 7.2. (Once again, I know this is an old
release but I do not have a newer version installed, and I am only using
the server for research purposes). If you execute the following statement
SELECT (CAST('01.01.2004 10:01:00' AS TIMESTAMP) - CAST('01.01.2004
1
Hi,
This is a another bug reported for the Firebird 1.0 server. I subsequently
ran it in PostgreSQL 7.2, Oracle 8.0.5 anf MSSQL 7.
Reproducible script:
Connect as pgsql:
CREATE TABLE TEST(ID INTEGER,NAME VARCHAR(50));
INSERT INTO TEST (ID) VALUES (1);
GRANT UPDATE ON TEST TO TESTUSER;
Connect as
Interesting
If I reverse the order it works...
agencysacks=# SELECT CAST('01.01.2004 10:00:00' AS
TIMESTAMP) + (CAST('01.01.2004 10:01:00' AS TIMESTAMP)
- CAST('01.01.2004 10:00:00' AS TIMESTAMP)) as answer;
answer
-
2004-01-01 10:01:00
(1 row)
However you
O kyrios Ilir Gashi egrapse stis Jul 2, 2004 :
SELECT '01.01.2004 10:00:00'::timestamp + ('01.01.2004
10:01:00'::timestamp - '01.01.2004 10:00:00'::timestamp)::interval;
?column?
-
2004-01-01 10:01:00
(1 row)
works fine in my 7.4.2
> Hi,
>
> I saw this behaviour in P
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:50:07 -0300,
PostgreSQL Bugs List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
This doesn't appear to be a bug at this point. It sounds like you have
a self induced performance problem, so I am moving the discussion to
pgsql-performance.
>
On Jul 2 2004, Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
SELECT '01.01.2004 10:00:00'::timestamp + ('01.01.2004
10:01:00'::timestamp - '01.01.2004 10:00:00'::timestamp)::interval;
?column?
-
2004-01-01 10:01:00
(1 row)
works fine in my 7.4.2
Yes. I've just tried it in PostgreSQL 7.2 and it
Am Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2004 23:10 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Right. The reason PG doesn't error is that we have an implicit cast
> from integer to text. I've opined before that we should mark most
> cross-type-category casts as explicit-only ... they are just too prone
> to give unexpected answers, as i
Ilir Gashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I saw this behaviour in PostgreSQL 7.2. (Once again, I know this is an old
> release but I do not have a newer version installed, and I am only using
> the server for research purposes). If you execute the following statement
> SELECT (CAST('01.01.2004 10
Am Freitag, 2. Juli 2004 13:20 schrieb Ilir Gashi:
> CREATE TABLE TEST(ID INTEGER,NAME VARCHAR(50));
> INSERT INTO TEST (ID) VALUES (1);
> GRANT UPDATE ON TEST TO TESTUSER;
> Connect as TestUser;
> UPDATE TEST SET NAME='TEST' WHERE ID=1;
> ERROR: test: Permission denied.
> UPDATE TEST SET NAME='TE
Ilir Gashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a another bug reported for the Firebird 1.0 server. I subsequently
> ran it in PostgreSQL 7.2, Oracle 8.0.5 anf MSSQL 7.
> Reproducible script:
> Connect as pgsql:
> CREATE TABLE TEST(ID INTEGER,NAME VARCHAR(50));
> INSERT INTO TEST (ID) VALUES
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ilir Gashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I saw this behaviour in PostgreSQL 7.2. (Once again, I know this is an old
> > release but I do not have a newer version installed, and I am only using
> > the server for research purposes). If you execute the followi
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (There is a timestamp + interval operator, so you could make it work by
>> flipping around the outer addition.)
> Should we be providing an interval + timestamp operator as well since it
> looks like the spec implie
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Juli 2004 23:10 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Right. The reason PG doesn't error is that we have an implicit cast
>> from integer to text. I've opined before that we should mark most
>> cross-type-category casts as explicit-only ... they are
On Jul 2 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Ilir Gashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a another bug reported for the Firebird 1.0 server. I
> subsequently ran it in PostgreSQL 7.2, Oracle 8.0.5 anf MSSQL 7.
> Reproducible script:
> Connect as pgsql:
> CREATE TABLE TEST(ID INTEGER,NAME VARCHAR(50));
> I
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (There is a timestamp + interval operator, so you could make it work by
> >> flipping around the outer addition.)
>
> > Should we be providing an interval + timestamp opera
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:27:35 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IIRC there were objections the last time it was seriously proposed,
> basically of the form "but that will break my application which relies
> on writing so-and-so without a cast". We did get as far as removing all
Me wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. Juli 2004 13:20 schrieb Ilir Gashi:
> > CREATE TABLE TEST(ID INTEGER,NAME VARCHAR(50));
> > INSERT INTO TEST (ID) VALUES (1);
> > GRANT UPDATE ON TEST TO TESTUSER;
> > Connect as TestUser;
> > UPDATE TEST SET NAME='TEST' WHERE ID=1;
> > ERROR: test: Permission denied.
>
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but these seem to have a constituency :-(
> I think it is reasoable to expect people to use an explicit cast when
> doing these conversions.
That's what I think, but I lost the argument last time round...
I th
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Should we be providing an interval + timestamp operator as well since it
>>> looks like the spec implies both orderings should work?
>>
>> If you see spec support for it, then yes ... where do you read that
>> exactly?
> SQL92 (draft) 4.5.3 Operators
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the letter of the SQL standard, this behavior is not conforming.
> But PostgreSQL enforces that you need SELECT privilege for columns that you
> read for the purpose of performing an UPDATE.
Why do you think it's non-conformant? AFAICS
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > According to the letter of the SQL standard, this behavior is not conforming.
> > But PostgreSQL enforces that you need SELECT privilege for columns that you
> > read for the purpose of performing an UPDATE.
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
