On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:31 AM Mikael Gustavsson <
[email protected]> wrote:
> This is my first ever patch to postgresql so please guide me if i'm doing
> something wrong.
>
>
The subject line of an email should fairly precisely say what is being
changed in the proposed patch. The docum
On 19/12/2025 17:14, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM John Naylor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 2:31 PM Mikael Gustavsson
wrote:
This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from md5 to
scram-sha-256
Reference:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:53 PM John Naylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 2:31 PM Mikael Gustavsson
> wrote:
> > This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from md5
> > to scram-sha-256
> > Reference:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/176595607507.978865.115
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 2:31 PM Mikael Gustavsson
wrote:
> This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from md5
> to scram-sha-256
> Reference:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/176595607507.978865.11597773194269211255%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
Pushed and backpatche
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 2:51 PM Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> The patch looks good to me and it looks like a useful change. To make
> sure it is not lost you can add it to the current open commitfest but it
> is also possible that some committer will just pick up the patch directly.
I can commit this
On Thu, 2025-12-18 at 08:51 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 12/18/25 8:31 AM, Mikael Gustavsson wrote:
> > This is my first ever patch to postgresql so please guide me if i'm
> > doing something wrong.
> >
> > This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from
> > md5 to
On 12/18/25 8:31 AM, Mikael Gustavsson wrote:
This is my first ever patch to postgresql so please guide me if i'm
doing something wrong.
This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from
md5 to scram-sha-256
Reference: https://www.postgresql.org/message-
id/176595607507.
Hi
This is my first ever patch to postgresql so please guide me if i'm doing
something wrong.
This patch updates some examples in documentation client-auth.sgml from md5 to
scram-sha-256
Reference:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/176595607507.978865.11597773194269211255%40wrigleys.postgr
Committed.
--
nathan
On 2025-Jun-30, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> These functions have been around for a while, but commits 48b5aa3 and
> 15afb7d were only back-patched to v16. Any objections if I apply them
> down to v13 now?
None here.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 5:34 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> These functions have been around for a while, but commits 48b5aa3 and
> 15afb7d were only back-patched to v16. Any objections if I apply them down
> to v13 now?
Seems fine to me.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
These functions have been around for a while, but commits 48b5aa3 and
15afb7d were only back-patched to v16. Any objections if I apply them down
to v13 now?
--
nathan
>From 5c2fafe16a95bea32fd0808d596afb18446f69a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:21:34 -05
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 12:27, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
>> Does anyone have any opinion on the wording I'm proposing in the attached?
>
> I like it. It removes the problematic wording and moves the reference to
> —all closer to the front to aid in
On Monday, April 21, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any opinion on the wording I'm proposing in the attached?
>
I like it. It removes the problematic wording and moves the reference to
—all closer to the front to aid in skimming.
David J.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 08:53, Noboru Saito wrote:
> Regarding "to to" and "that that", I agree that they might be
> technically acceptable.
> However, I personally find them a bit harder to parse and they
> increase the chance of misreading for me.
> Your suggested alternative for "to to" is much
Thank you for the review! I appreciate your detailed feedback.
Regarding "to to" and "that that", I agree that they might be
technically acceptable.
However, I personally find them a bit harder to parse and they
increase the chance of misreading for me.
Your suggested alternative for "to to" is mu
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 15:06, Noboru Saito wrote:
> 1. Remove unnecessary blank lines (blankline.diff)
Looks good.
> 2. Fix repeated "to to" in several command reference files (toto.diff)
-Specifies the name of the database to connect to to discover which
+Specifies the name of
Hi PostgreSQL Hackers,
I'm a member of the PostgreSQL Japanese documentation translation
team. While working on translations,
I've identified several minor grammatical and formatting issues in the
English documentation.
Please review them.
1. Remove unnecessary blank lines (blankline.diff)
2. Fix
Hi Chris
Thank you for your feedback. You are right, libpq verify if the server is
trustworthy by checking server certificate and check hostname matches with
server common name when sslmode is verify-full, and it is already explained in
another documentation page
https://www.postgresql.org/d
Hi, Cary.
On 3/2/20 1:06 PM, Cary Huang wrote:
Hi
I found a document bug about client authentication using TLS
certificate. When clientcert authentication is enabled in pg_hba.conf,
libpq does not verify that the *common name*in certificate
matches*database username*like it is described in t
Hi
I found a document bug about client authentication using TLS certificate. When
clientcert authentication is enabled in pg_hba.conf, libpq does not verify that
the common name in certificate matches database username like it is described
in the documentation before allowing client connectio
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:56 AM (GMT+9), Mike Lissner wrote:
> Hi all, I didn't get any replies to this. Is this the right way to send in a
> patch to the
> docs?
Hello,
Yes, although your current patch does not apply as I tried it in my machine.
But you can still rebase it.
For the revie
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Mike Lissner
> wrote:
>
> Hi all, I didn't get any replies to this. Is this the right way to send in a
> patch to the docs?
>
Yes, your patch has been received, thanks. I don’t know if anybody is
reviewing it, but typically you don’t hear back on a patch u
Hi all, I didn't get any replies to this. Is this the right way to send in
a patch to the docs?
Thanks,
Mike
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:01 PM Mike Lissner <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, first patch here and first post to pgsql-hackers. Here goes.
>
> Enclosed please find a patc
24 matches
Mail list logo
