Re: Update encryption options doc for SCRAM-SHA-256

2018-02-03 Thread Shay Rojansky
Thanks for your attention to this. I'm definitely not a cryptography expert, but it seems to me that the actual mechanisms (MD5, SHA-256) are more important than the protocols used to negotiate them (SASL, SCRAM). When some security expert unfamiliar with PostgreSQL goes over itss documentation to

Re: Signed-ness of ints is unclear in FE-BE protocol docs

2020-06-11 Thread Shay Rojansky
> > Second, across the protocol docs, rather than using Int32 and Int64, > which > > generally look like they're signed (depending on which language you're > > coming from), I'd consider using UInt32/UInt64, which are unambiguous > with > > regards to signed-ness. > > Well, they are actually signed

Incorrect and missing docs for range_intersect_agg

2022-05-27 Thread Shay Rojansky
Hi all, range_intersect_agg is documented to return anymultirange (on this page[1]), but it actually returns a range. In addition, range_intersect_agg also accepts a multirange as its parameter, but that's not documented on the same page. Note that range_agg does *not* accept a multirange (possib

Lower/upper-case consistency with function names

2022-06-05 Thread Shay Rojansky
Hi all, The PostgreSQL docs mostly show function names in lowercase (e.g. [1], [2]), which seems to be the PostgreSQL-idiomatic thing to do. However, some pages show functions in upper case, e.g. COALESCE/NULLIF/GREATEST/LEAST ([3]). Is there some difference between these which warrants the case d

Re: Lower/upper-case consistency with function names

2022-06-05 Thread Shay Rojansky
On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 10:27 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote: > As mentioned in the doc in [3], COALESCE and all the others are actually not functions (those are specific keywords handled in the parser): Thanks. Yeah, I noticed that comment, but NULLIF which is also documented on that page isn't mention

Clarify the ordering guarantees in combining queries (or lack thereof)

2022-07-13 Thread Shay Rojansky
Greetings. I was trying to understand what - if any - are the guarantees with regards to ordering for combining queries (UNION/UNION ALL/...). From this message[1], it seems that UNION ALL does preserve the ordering of the operand queries, whereas UNION does not (presumably neither do INTERSECT, I

Re: Clarify the ordering guarantees in combining queries (or lack thereof)

2022-07-14 Thread Shay Rojansky
>> I was trying to understand what - if any - are the guarantees with regards to ordering for combining queries (UNION/UNION ALL/...). From this message[1], it seems that UNION ALL does preserve the ordering of the operand queries, whereas UNION does not (presumably neither do INTERSECT, INTERSECT

Re: Clarify the ordering guarantees in combining queries (or lack thereof)

2022-07-14 Thread Shay Rojansky
>> No, there is no guarantee. It's just that UNION ALL works this way today >> (preserving the order of the subselects) - and I'm not even sure about >> that, it may not preserve the order in all cases, with different indexes or >> partitioning or a parallel plan, etc. > > Yeah, that. You can get