Re: [BUGS] BUG #3321: No start service

2007-05-30 Thread Andrew Sullivan
AFAIK 7.4 only runs under Cygwin on XP. You should upgrade to a more recent version, which is actually a native port. A On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 07:33:53PM +, Alceu Paz wrote: > > The following bug has been logged online: > > Bug reference: 3321 > Logged by: Alceu Paz > Email

[BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Frank van Vugt
Hi, Migrating a number of sql-functions to plpgsql-functions with added functionality resulted in a backend crash. # select version(); version PostgreSQL 8.2.4 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled

Re: [BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END Hmm, do you get the impression that user-written constraint triggers aren't very well tested ;-) ? It looks to me like BeginInternalSubTransaction simply needs to allow TBLOCK_END (and TBLOCK_PR

Re: [BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Frank van Vugt
> Hmm, do you get the impression that user-written constraint triggers > aren't very well tested ;-) ? Well, we users are here to serve ;) > It looks to me like BeginInternalSubTransaction simply needs to allow > TBLOCK_END (and TBLOCK_PREPARE too) as acceptable initial states Ok, so for patch-s

Re: [BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, so for patch-sake, when I change BeginInternalSubTransaction() in xact.c > by moving these two cases to the upper set > (TBLOCK_STARTED/INPROGRESS/SUBINPROGRESS), then I should be ok? Try it and see ... regards, tom lane

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Pedro Gimeno Fortea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 05/29/2007 03:35:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This is not a bug. If you want to revoke the privilege, revoke the >> GRANT OPTION you originally gave. > Why should I? Because that's how the SQL spec defines that it works.

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3320: Error when using INSERT...RETURNING as a subquery

2007-05-30 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 22:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 18:10 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > >> It has the same problem that SELECT triggers have. How many rows should you > >> expect that subquery to insert, update, or delete if it's use

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Pedro Gimeno Fortea
On 05/30/2007 06:57:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Pedro Gimeno Fortea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 05/29/2007 03:35:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> This is not a bug. If you want to revoke the privilege, revoke >> the GRANT OPTION you originally gave. > Why should I? Because that's how the SQL spec def

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Pedro Gimeno Fortea
On 05/29/2007 03:35:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Pedro Gimeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When a USAGE grant on a SCHEMA is given by an user (non-superuser > in my case), the superuser can't revoke it; instead the REVOKE > statement is silently ignored. This is not a bug. If you want to revoke t

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Pedro Gimeno Fortea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 05/30/2007 06:57:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Because that's how the SQL spec defines that it works. > Still, is silently ignoring the command the proper action to take when > the REVOKE is executed by the superuser and not by the grantor? You wan

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Pedro Gimeno Fortea
On 05/30/2007 07:55:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Pedro Gimeno Fortea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Still, is silently ignoring the command the proper action to take > when the REVOKE is executed by the superuser and not by the > grantor? You want a warning when REVOKE didn't do anything because ther

Re: [BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Frank van Vugt
> > Ok, so for patch-sake, when I change BeginInternalSubTransaction() in > > xact.c by moving these two cases to the upper set > > (TBLOCK_STARTED/INPROGRESS/SUBINPROGRESS), then I should be ok? > Try it and see ... Been there, done that, seems to work (both the example as well as my usecase).

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Pedro Gimeno Fortea
On 05/30/2007 08:44:19 PM, Pedro Gimeno Fortea wrote: Note that this is not similar to the GRANT case. I'd say it's similar to wanting to delete a table created by another user: if you're not the owner, you can't, unless you're a superuser. The similarity becomes obvious when replacing "del

[BUGS] BUG #3323: Wrong charset for the lower and upper functions

2007-05-30 Thread Eduardo Santos
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 3323 Logged by: Eduardo Santos Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PostgreSQL version: 8.2.4 Operating system: Windows Description:Wrong charset for the lower and upper functions Details: When you have the latin

Re: [BUGS] backend crash with FATAL: BeginInternalSubTransaction: unexpected state END

2007-05-30 Thread Tom Lane
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Ok, so for patch-sake, when I change BeginInternalSubTransaction() in >>> xact.c by moving these two cases to the upper set >>> (TBLOCK_STARTED/INPROGRESS/SUBINPROGRESS), then I should be ok? >> Try it and see ... > Been there, done that, seems to wo

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3319: Superuser can't revoke grants on a schema given by aother user

2007-05-30 Thread Pedro Gimeno Fortea
I got a broader view of the whole picture and obviously my proposal that the superuser automatically revokes the privileges granted by all others does not make sense. So let me state the solutions I propose to the problem I'm facing: (1) In the documentation for REVOKE, after the paragraph

Re: [BUGS] BUG #3323: Wrong charset for the lower and upper functions

2007-05-30 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Eduardo Santos wrote: > When you have the latin character ç and use the lower or the upper > function, instead of return the approprite character, it returns the oposite > one, so the comparisons in the whole DB are wrong. If you have a word such > as Serviço, and you use the lower function, the