* many projects don't have the resources we do
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
greSQL community doesn't support pglogical. You can contact
> pglogical community for your questions on the same.
FYI, I think the community is here:
https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/pglogical
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 02:45:58PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:41 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 09:42:30AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > > > > "Add an asynchronous I/O subsystem"
> > >
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 05:51:25PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 03:28:38PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> There are certainly use cases where this would be helpful, but I think
> the big question is whether it would have so many negatives that most
> people who t
her it would have so many negatives that most
people who try to use it would eventually remove it. I have heard that
happened to other relational systems who support global indexes, so I
think we have to consider that possibility. The problem is you might
need to actually write the patch to find o
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 08:32:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 05:53:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 02:29:46PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > I agree with David G. Johnston's feedback on this. My draft didn't
lp if the default behavior changed, as in the
> current case.
Well, technically we would know the default from the old version, so we
could infer the desired behavior.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urge
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 05:53:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 02:29:46PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I agree with David G. Johnston's feedback on this. My draft didn't mention
> > SECURITY DEFINER, because I consider it redundant from a use
tive role in a non-temporary way.
> Doing that will now have different effects than it did before.
Yes, I wonder if we need to work that angle into the description.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not l
es other sources of user
> identity. No need to mention it each time.
Well, if it is a SECURITY DEFINER function, it is not going to be run as
the user who is active at commit/execution time, so I think we have to
specify that.
--
Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 02:02:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:45 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Now, if we do want to mention it, it should be done in a way that makes
> it clear to readers whether they are affected by this change. We can
>
hat most people don't see pg_upgrade
output, and the case is even less positive.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:21:23AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 10:44:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes.
>
> When a commit changes the user that runs a function in existing queries, I
> think
htly different. Our existing system has
users running triggers on tables that don't own as themselves, so the
table owner has full control over what is in the triggers. If we were
to switch it so users run triggers as the table owner, the users can't
change the triggers --- the
e the number on other file systems. I suppose it at least allows
> experimentation.
Consider that postgresql.conf is installed by initdb, so backpatching
this is not going to add the setting to postgresql.conf unless we do
some magic. That will be confusing to users.
--
Bruce Momjian
ond, I agree adding a SELECT security deficiency is certainly worse,
but how are we expecting people to restore databases securely with these
known deficiencies?
Effectively, what good is our security system if it is just delaying
someone from getting superuser privileges in case of a dump/re
e commits for the read stream users. Should we do that here
> as well? Those are what enable those operations to use AIO.
So, I added the read stream item to PG 17 since that was a new
infrastructure feature, but for PG 18, we are just improving that
internal infrastructure, so didn't mention
since their purposes are
> related.
I studied this and I can't figure out how to clearly explain it in a
useful way. I am now thinking it is more of a bug or behavior fix or
that would not be usually mentioned.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 02:54:29PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 5/27/25 17:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:20:08AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > > On 5/23/25 09:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Álvaro H
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:25:03PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2025 23:14:36 +0900
> Yugo Nagata wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 May 2025 22:44:50 -0400
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes
9ab and c4e44224cf6
> which were part of the same work.
>
> I think it's also worth mentioning 9428c001f67, which sped up numeric
> division. That can be included in the same item, as in the attached
> patch, unless you think it's worth listing it as a separate item.
Great,
se warnings can be disabled by setting the
> md5_password_warnings parameter to "off".
Agree, I have replaced the item text with your text.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 08:13:24AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There seems to be some unexpected ">" here:
>
> "E.1.3.7.3. Logical Replication Applications>"
Yes, a mistake, fixed.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:20:08AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 5/23/25 09:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I also think that showing an XML-ish format of a commit message is
> > > unhelpful, not to menti
lso heard of cases where postgresql.conf must be modified for
pg_upgrade to succeed, and of course initdb installs postgresql.conf.
Should #5 be after #6?
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:01:13AM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:24 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I see your point that we are not defining what this does. I went with
> > the attached text.
>
> You propose the wording is "This allows muti-co
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 03:16:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 10:44:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I will continue improving it until beta 1, and until the final release.
> > I will probably add markup in 1-3 weeks. Let the feedback begin.
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-May-20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:15:54PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > > > As of the date of the commit, "Co-authored-by:" is listed as:
> > > &g
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:46:09AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-May-22, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Ah, I see, fixed with the attached patch. It might be nice if we had a
> > more organized way of recording such commit corrections.
>
> `git notes` can do that.
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 08:19:15AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 08:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes. The item
> > count looks strong:
> >
> > I will continue improving it until be
by the apparent naming conflict.
Yes, I understand this "loose index scan" feature as preventing DISTINCT
from traversing all matching indexed values, and then removing
duplicates. Rather it stops after finding the first match for each
distinct value.
--
Bruce Momjian
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:57:07PM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 10:44 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes.
>
> I suggest that you use something like the following wording for the
> skip scan feature:
greed on notification. A radical idea would be to add a warning for
the use of such encodings in PG 18, and then mention their deprecation
in the PG 18 release notes so everyone is informed they will be removed
in PG 19.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
kdwqcdn2x1_63c58+07oy4z+rudk_xptup+pe8r...@mail.gmail.com
>
> and there is another wiki page
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Variable_Design
Yes, these URLs are very helpful, thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb
(outside PL/pgSQL).
> We can talk about other features like temporal, default values, transactional,
> etc ...
I feel that if we haven't found a good solution to this in 13 years, we
should assume it is unsolvable and just accept an imperfect solution.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 07:15:27AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 20. 5. 2025 v 23:07 odesílatel Bruce Momjian napsal:
> > If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper
> > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:28:31PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 20. 5. 2025 v 18:39 odesílatel Bruce Momjian napsal:
> I sent a reduced version a few months ago - from 21 patches to 8 (and it can
> be
> reduced to six if we postpone tools for detection ambiguity).
> The
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 16:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, we do have a right, e.g., we would not allow someone to repeatedly
> > post patches for a Postgres extension we don't manage, or the jdbc
>
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:47:36PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 20 May 2025, at 18:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > My only point is that we should only be using email lists for work that
> > is being actively worked on to be added to community Postgres. There
>
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:33:18PM -0300, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em ter., 20 de mai. de 2025 às 11:56, Bruce Momjian
> escreveu:
>
> I will again ask why this patch set is being reposted when there is no
> plan to apply it to git master
>
> Too bad. I wo
s is automated by src/tools/copyright.pl on a yearly-basis,
> > but it is possible that holes appear when some code gets committed
> > that predates the new year.
>
> I had the idea that this was part of our pre-branch checklist,
> but it was not mentioned there. I added it.
I only ru
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 08:48:37AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> fresh rebase
I will again ask why this patch set is being reposted when there is no
plan to apply it to git master?
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
-by:" guidance was only written down in
January of this year. I assume Thomas Munro was following that guidance
when he wrote the commit message.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:46:44PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 05:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I will continue improving it until beta 1, and until the final release.
> > I will probably
patibility section because there were new features mixed
into the process so I listed them in the main section. I thought that
was the proper balance.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
tems
that would be interesting to extension developers that adding just a few
to the release notes would not be very helpful, and if we add all of
them it would be distracting for the majority of users. It might be
helpful for someone to write a wiki page specifically for that audie
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:22:21AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Monday, May 12, 2025, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Yeah, you could name the constraint
> "Custom_error_message_when_the_condition_is_not_met." and then just
> convert underscore to spaces and
gt; It's also not very clear why we'd stop with check constraints,
> if the desire is to get rid of database-produced error messages
> in favor of something that somebody likes better.
Yeah, you could name the constraint
"Custom_error_message_when_the_condition_is_not_met.&
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 10:38:06AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 14:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I will continue improving it until beta 1, and until the final release.
> > I will probably add markup in 1-3 weeks. Let the feedback begin. ;-)
>
> Minor
ompute CRC values"
Thanks, fixed.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
are used in grouping sets.
Okay, that is clear. Let's stay with what we have in the release notes
and see if we get any feedback from users during the beta period; that
might give us direction on whether we want to expand what we already
have. Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momj
uces the CASEFOLD to help
introduces CASEFOLD to help
and also adds the ssl_tls13_ciphers to let
and also adds ssl_tls13_ciphers to let
^
and surfaces this information
and reports this information
^^^
--
Bruce Momjian https:/
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 07:46:11PM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 5:41 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 03:03:32PM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if we should consider mentioning that several
> > > long-standing
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 03:45:00PM +0800, jian he wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 10:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > release-18: 209
> >
> > I will continue improving it until beta 1, and until the final release.
> > I will probably add markup in 1
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 01:16:45PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 13:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ah, I see those now. It was two commits. For some reason the edits are
> > hard for me; applied patch attached.
>
> Thanks. There's been lots of
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 12:47:22PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 12:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > +Change pg_backend_memory_contexts.level and
> > pg_log_backend_memory_contexts()() to be one-based (Melih Mutlu, Fujii
> > Masao)
>
> There'
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 09:33:49AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 14:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > You can see the most current HTML-built version here:
> >
> > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-18.html
>
> You might have left it out on
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 07:59:41PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 22:44:50 -0400
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes. The item
> > count looks strong:
>
> Thank you for working on this.
>
>
will be
> removed in a future release" in the beta announcement, as that could lead to
> confusion (e.g. it's removed in beta 2!). I'm fine with adding that in the
You could say "will be removed in a future major release".
--
Bruce Momjian https://m
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 03:03:32PM +0900, Richard Guo wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes.
>
> > I will continue improving it until beta 1, and until the final release.
> >
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 09:27:14AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 07:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think what you are saying is that this has to do with partition
> > processing of joins, but not the pruning process. I don't think a
> > non-partiti
sonb NULL values to be cast to scalar types as NULL (Tom Lane) §
> Previously such casts generated an error.
>
> here should be "jsonb null values", since we can not do ``select
> 'NULL'::jsonb;``
All fixed in the attached applied patch.
--
Bruce Momjian
ctually, is AIO using worker processes new behavior or just a new
implementation of our old behavior? I might need to point that out in
the release notes.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:18:27PM +0800, jian he wrote:
> Allow partitions to be pruned more efficienty (Ashutosh Bapat, Yuya
> Watari, David Rowley) § §
> typo, "efficienty" should be "efficiently"?
Yes, fixed from other email report. My spellcheck filter was
20x faster with 1000 partitions.
>
> * Planning time improvements: Planning certain commonly used queries
> against partitioned tables when they don’t use partition pruning is
> now roughly 20x faster with 1000 partitions.
That's impressive!
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.
On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 03:14:56PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2025 at 03:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 09:42:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > > I agree that 88f55bc97 and d69d45a5a should be in their own item.
> > >
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Capitalization changed, patch attached.
>
> I need to start wrapping the tarballs soon ... are you done
> with the release notes for today?
Yes, I am, thanks for asking. I was waiting fo
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 12:20:15PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:44 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-18.html
>
> > +Add support for the "oauth" authentication (Jacob Champion, Daniel
> > Gustaf
gt; for consitency.
>
> Or:
I went with the A option, patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:14:22PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 14:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > You can see the most current HTML-built version here:
> >
> > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-18.html
>
> Thanks for working on t
525392d57, something like
> "Defer locking of partitions during execution until after partition
> elimination". The release notes for 11.0 called it "partition
> elimination", so I went with that naming.
Okay, I split them up and went with the attached patch.
--
e number of invalid rows file_fdw can ignore
> > (Atsushi Torikoshi)
> > This is active when ON_ERROR = 'ignore'.
>
> The case of option names for file_fdw is inconsistent — some are
> lowercase (on_error, log_verbosity), while
; they aren't new features, just making existing features work
> correctly. The one I have second is I think of lesser importance.
Agreed, moved as you suggested. I have trouble figuring out the
importance sometimes, and this section is very large.
Patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian
On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 11:49:47AM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 04:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes.
>
> Some suggestions for additional commits to list for the items in the
> chang
On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 02:48:31AM +0300, Alexander Borisov wrote:
> 04.05.2025 02:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> > It doesn't warrant its own item because it is not user-facing work. The
> > best we can do is add the commit to an existing item and add you as a
> &g
On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 02:24:16AM +0300, Alexander Borisov wrote:
> 04.05.2025 01:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Given the performance numbers above, which were not in the commit, maybe
> > I should add it to the case folding item, and add his name as a
>
ps://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=27bdec06841d1bb004ca7627eac97808b08a7ac7
>
> I am now actively working on a major improvement to Unicode
> Normalization Forms.
Given the performance numbers above, which were not in the commit, maybe
I should add it to the
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 09:40:47PM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 at 18:19, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I moved the item and added some text, patch attached.
>
> LGTM, apart from the typo in the word "client' (it's spelled as
> "
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 11:04:45PM +0800, jian he wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 10:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes. The item
> > count looks strong:
> > release-17: 182
> > release-
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 01:16:24PM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 at 02:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 01:46:29AM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 04:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > &g
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 01:46:29AM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 04:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have committd the first draft of the PG 18 release notes. The item
> > count looks strong:
>
> Thanks for all the work. Some notes:
&
ase send corrections by Sunday.
They look good to me, as does my entry:
Avoid incorrect optimizations based on IS [NOT]
NULL tests that are applied to composite values
(Bruce Momjian)
§
My com
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 12:18:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Finally, I see the big increases in this release as being the optimizer,
> monitoring, and constraints.
Also, and I am loving the chapter markers linking to gitweb.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
I don't think most people would know what EquivalenceMember is, and even
if they did, would they be able to connect it to an SQL query?
Finally, I see the big increases in this release as being the optimizer,
monitoring, and constraints.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 08:24:42AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:44 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I will probably add markup in 1-3 weeks. Let the feedback begin. ;-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > Version 18 contains a number of changes
/pgsql_docs/release-18.html
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
ight be required to load the data. Why would we
avoid it with no known error reports?
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 04:51:08PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Apr-24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Do we think most people are _not_ going to use pg_upgrade now that we
> > are defaulting to checksums being enabled by default in PG 18? And if
> > so, do we th
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:51:41AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 8:37 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> When I wrote pg_upgrade, I assumed at some point the value of changing the
> storage format would outweigh the value of allowing in-place
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:35:10AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 8:12 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Do we think most people are _not_ going to use pg_upgrade now that we
> are defaulting to checksums being enabled by default in PG 18?
>
>
asking anyway.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:43:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:38:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I agree that we should do something about this. I haven't reviewed
> >> your patches but the approach sounds br
query.
>
> I agree that we should do something about this. I haven't reviewed
> your patches but the approach sounds broadly reasonable.
Yep, we went down the road in PG 18 to convert syntax, and now we have
to fix this, or we have to revert all the PG 18 syntax changes, which
seems l
there's probably some value in keeping it similar to what
> people are used to seeing.
FYI, I researched these messages in 2023 to see if the message can be
adjusted based on the code line generating the message, but with no
conclusion:
https://www.postgresql.org/mes
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 09:17:03AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 9:14 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How does this patch help us avoid having to handle curl CVEs and its
> > curl's additional dependencies? As I understand the patch, it makes
> > l
asking too. For me it was curl's
security reputation and whether that would taint the security reputation
of libpq. For Tom, I think it was the dependency additions.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 06:42:19PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 8 Apr 2025, at 18:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Would we have to put out minor releases for curl CVEs? I don't think we
> > have to for OpenSSL so would curl be the same?
>
> Why do y
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-04-08 13:02:11 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 06:57:18PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote:
> > > Jacob Champion:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 9:32
d client dependencies. I'm not sure.
Well, if we think we are going to do that, it seems we would need a
different architecture than the one being proposed for PG 18, which
could lead to a lot of user/developer API churn.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 10:00:56AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 9:49 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 09:43:01AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > > By adding the new .so to a different package. For example, RPM specs
> > >
1 - 100 of 1515 matches
Mail list logo
