On 8/29/23 13:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Wienhold writes:
On 29/08/2023 18:43 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
Shouldn't psql put *something* (like "(default)" or "-") in the
"Access privileges" column to indicate that? Or conversely,
something (like "(none)&q
On 8/29/23 08:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Wienhold writes:
On 29/08/2023 03:23 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
If I've done a GRANT or REVOKE on some of the tables, how do I restore
the default privileges so that the “Access privileges” appears empty
again? I re-granted what I think are the de
Hello,
The Postgresql docs on object privileges,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/ddl-priv.html
say this in regard to the output of the psql \dp command:
| If the “Access privileges” column is empty for a given object, it
| means the object has default privileges (that is, its privileges
On 10/24/19 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Laurenz Albe writes:
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 13:00 -0600, Stuart McGraw wrote:
It is less sensible with compound values where the rule can apply to
individual scalar components.
I agree that JSON can sensibly be viewed as a composite value, but ...
And
On 10/23/19 5:42 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
David G. Johnston wrote:
Now if only the vast majority of users could have and keep this level of
understanding
in mind while writing complex queries so that they remember to always add
protections
to compensate for the unique design decision that SQL h
On 8/7/19 2:38 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Igor Korot wrote:
On top of what already been said - make sure that the product you are
about to start working on will have its requirements clear and concise.
This is a critical process that needs to be developed in depth. One
criter
I would like to deploy a web application with a Postgresql backend
that allows a user to both add a record containing arbitrary text,
and to search that text column with an arbitrary regular expression.
My question is, is the app subject to a regex denial of service attack?
I would have presumed
On 05/29/2018 05:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-May-29, Stuart McGraw wrote:
Alternatively if there were a setting to tell Postgresql to
follow the SQL standard behavior of overwriting rather stacking
savepoints, that too would also solve my current problem I think.
Perhaps it is just my
On 05/29/2018 05:18 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>>wrote:
On 2018-May-29, Stuart McGraw wrote:
> Alternatively if there were a setting to tell Postgresql to
> follow the SQL standard
On 05/29/2018 08:26 AM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Stuart McGraw mailto:smcg4...@mtneva.com>> wrote:
Is there some way to to test if a savepoint of a given name
exists? Or better yet, the number of stacked savepoints of
that name?
This is k
On 05/29/2018 08:38 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-May-27, Stuart McGraw wrote:
Is there some way to to test if a savepoint of a given name
exists? Or better yet, the number of stacked savepoints of
that name?
What is the use case for this?
I have a process that extracts data from a
On 05/27/2018 04:39 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2018, Stuart McGraw mailto:smcg4...@mtneva.com>> wrote:
Is there some way to to test if a savepoint of a given name
exists? Or better yet, the number of stacked savepoints of
that name?
A scan of the documen
Is there some way to to test if a savepoint of a given name
exists? Or better yet, the number of stacked savepoints of
that name?
On 05/22/2018 07:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Stuart McGraw writes:
When I start my postgresql server I get 11 messages reporting that "password
authentication failed for user 'postgres'" spaced about ~.5sec apart.
Sounds like the trace of something probing the postmaster to s
When I start my postgresql server I get 11 messages reporting that "password
authentication failed for user 'postgres'" spaced about ~.5sec apart.
I increased the logging level to INFO, and added the application name to the
message format (after the pid) which resulted in:
2018-05-21 23:04:44.3
On 03/21/2018 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/21/2018 01:59 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/21/2018 02:37 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
Thanks, I forgot that the older repos also received the pg-10 update.
Unfortunately but no luck with Xenial either, slightly different
but similar conflicts.
My
On 03/21/2018 02:38 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/21/2018 01:31 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/21/2018 12:14 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
[...]
It still seems to me that the best advice for using Postgresql on
Ubuntu is to use the Ubuntu version of Postgresql if you don't need
the latest ve
On 03/21/2018 02:37 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
Thanks, I forgot that the older repos also received the pg-10 update.
Unfortunately but no luck with Xenial either, slightly different
but similar conflicts.
My main motivation for updating to 10.3 was to be able to load data
dumped from a 10.3 database
On 03/21/2018 12:14 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/21/2018 10:59 AM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/21/2018 07:02 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/20/2018 10:52 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
[...]
If it where me I would simplify the above for the moment to :
apt-get install postgresql-10
Tried on a
On 03/21/2018 11:12 AM, Vincenzo Romano wrote:
On 03/20/2018 10:52 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
[...]
Is there any reason now not to conclude that the 10.3 bionic version is
simply incompatible with Ubuntu-17.10 (at least without a lot more package
wrangling chops than I have)?
One can install
On 03/21/2018 07:02 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/20/2018 10:52 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
Looks like these posts are coming through a news group to me.
I am Ccing list to get response back there.
Is this something I am doing wrong? I am posting through the gmane newsgroup
which in turn is bi
On 03/20/2018 09:46 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/20/2018 08:23 AM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
I recently installed Ubuntu-17.10 and then discovered that
Postgresql from the Pgdg repos is only supported on Ubuntu LTS
releases (eg 16.04). However info on the internet said pg-10
could be installed
On 03/20/2018 06:42 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/20/2018 05:34 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/20/2018 02:25 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/20/2018 02:19 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
[...]
# apt-get dist-upgrade
The following packages will be REMOVED:
pgadmin3
The following
On 03/20/2018 05:34 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 03/20/2018 02:25 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
On 03/20/2018 02:19 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Adrian Klaver 2018-03-20
<4c40e7c5-efa7-00d7-b891-acc9c1ec7...@aklaver.com>
>>> However I need to upgrade to 10.3 and the normal &qu
On 03/20/2018 02:19 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Adrian Klaver 2018-03-20
<4c40e7c5-efa7-00d7-b891-acc9c1ec7...@aklaver.com>
>>> However I need to upgrade to 10.3 and the normal "apt update;
>>> apt upgrade" does not offer 10.3. Also, doing a fresh install
>>> still installs 10.1.
>>
>> https
I recently installed Ubuntu-17.10 and then discovered that
Postgresql from the Pgdg repos is only supported on Ubuntu LTS
releases (eg 16.04). However info on the internet said pg-10
could be installed from Pgdg zesty repo, which with some package
version conflicts, I was able to do so and have a
On 12/27/2017 11:07 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Stuart McGraw wrote:
>> Is there a repository for Postgresql-10 available at
>> http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt for Ubuntu-17.10 (artful)?
>> When I look at the dist/ subdirectory there
Is there a repository for Postgresql-10 available at
http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt
for Ubuntu-17.10 (artful)? When I look at the dist/
subdirectory there, there seem to be repos for all the
other Ubuntu releases including an upcoming one (bionic)
but not artful.
Am I looking in the
28 matches
Mail list logo
