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
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
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
> 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
> > 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).
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo