[BUGS] BUG #1945: pgAdmin Crash when adding user

2005-10-08 Thread Bernard Simmons
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1945 Logged by: Bernard Simmons Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.1 Beta 2 Operating system: Windows 2000 Professional SP4 Description:pgAdmin Crash when adding user Details: I was able to

[BUGS] BUG #1946: Service registration fault during upgrade installation

2005-10-08 Thread Pedro Alvarez
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1946 Logged by: Pedro Alvarez Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.0.4 Operating system: Windows XP SP2 Description:Service registration fault during upgrade installation Details: During upgr

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible

2005-10-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Is this something we need to patch? --- Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > Description:Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner > > Details: > > > > I have been trying t

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1945: pgAdmin Crash when adding user

2005-10-08 Thread Andreas Pflug
Bernard Simmons wrote: The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1945 Logged by: Bernard Simmons Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.1 Beta 2 Operating system: Windows 2000 Professional SP4 Description:pgAdmin Crash when adding user

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible

2005-10-08 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 08 October 2005 16:44 > > To: Tony Marston > > Subject: RE: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema > > only accessible to owner > > > > > > On Sat, 8 O

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible

2005-10-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Is this something we need to patch? As soon as we get 50% votes on the SQL committee ... -- Alvaro Herrera Architect, http://www.EnterpriseDB.com "No necesitamos banderas No reconocemos fronteras" (Jorge González) -

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner

2005-10-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tony Marston wrote: > I have searched through the SQL 2003 standard and can find no such > restriction. In the volume titled "Information and Definition Schemas > (SQL/Schemata)" in section 5.20 (INORMATON_SCHEMA.COLUMNS view) it > states the following under the heading "Function": > > "Identify th

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible

2005-10-08 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > > If there's two items: > > "Function" with a description and "Definition" with a > > definition, I think it's fairly ignorant to read the former > > as overriding the latter. The latter *is* the definition. > > > > Yes, but if the sample code disagre

[BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Marston
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1947 Logged by: Tony Marston Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3 Operating system: Windows XP Description:Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function Details: I would like the option to use

[BUGS] BUG #1948: Enhancement Request - INSERT syntax

2005-10-08 Thread test_autoincrement
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 1948 Logged by: test_autoincrement Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3 Operating system: Windows XP Description:Enhancement Request - INSERT syntax Details: Currently the INSERT statemen

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Marston
> -Original Message- > From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 October 2005 16:44 > To: Tony Marston > Subject: RE: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema > only accessible to owner > > > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > I have searched through

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Marston
> -Original Message- > From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 October 2005 18:01 > To: Tony Marston > Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema > only accessible to owner > > > > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote:

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1948: Enhancement Request - INSERT syntax

2005-10-08 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:49:58PM +0100, test_autoincrement wrote: > This is not user-friendly, and I think the SQL committee made a big mistake > in defining totally different structures for the INSERT and UPDATE > statements. Matter of opinion. > MySQL already offers this option, so why can't y

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Tony Marston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like the option to use CONCAT(field1, ' ', field2) instead of the > vertical bar syntax (field1 || ' ' || field2) as this is also available in > other popular databases (MySQL, ORACLE). || is the SQL standard, CONCAT() is not. But feel free to

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner

2005-10-08 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The information schema currently follows SQL 1999. Interestingly, the > requirement to "blank out" the column defaults of non-owned tables was > apparently dropped in SQL 2003. Clearly, we need to review the > information schema for SQL 2003 confo

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:39:40PM +0100, Tony Marston wrote: > > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bug reference: 1947 > Logged by: Tony Marston > Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3 > Operating system: Windows XP > Description:En

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Tom Lane
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And you might want to make it a project at http://pgfoundry.org so > others can make use of it. You might also want to define it as accepting > an array; I think that would allow you to accept any number of > parameters. I think Tony is trying to avoid

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 04:33:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tony Marston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I would like the option to use CONCAT(field1, ' ', field2) instead of the > > vertical bar syntax (field1 || ' ' || field2) as this is also available in > > other popular databases (MySQL, ORA

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:11:58PM +0100, Tony Marston wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > The following bug has been logged online: > > > > > > Bug reference: 1947 > > > Logged by: Tony Marston > > > Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > PostgreSQL version: 8

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Tony Marston
> -Original Message- > From: David Fetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 October 2005 22:16 > To: Tony Marston > Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function > > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:39:40PM +0100, Tony Marston wrot

Re: [BUGS] BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

2005-10-08 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tony Marston wrote: > It is a well-known fact that every database vendor includes their own > "extensions" to the SQL standard simply because they want to offer more > functionality to their users, and they can't wait for it to be formally > documented in the standard. On the other hand, it would