On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> Ok so at present I see three distinct issues here, where maybe three
> different patches over time might be needed.
>
> The issues are:
>
> 1. create extension pgcrypto with schema pg_temp; fails because there is
> no schema actual
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:33 AM Chris Travers
wrote:
>
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
To re-iterate, my experience with PostgreSQL is that people doing
particularly exotic work in PostgreSQL can expect to hit equally exotic
bugs. I have a list that I will not bore people with here.
I think there is a gener
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:47:54PM +, Chris Travers wrote:
> > I tried installing a test extension into a temp schema. I found
> > this was remarkably difficult to do because pg_temp did not work (I
> > had to create a temporary table a
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:47:54PM +, Chris Travers wrote:
> I tried installing a test extension into a temp schema. I found
> this was remarkably difficult to do because pg_temp did not work (I
> had to create a temporary table and then locate the actual table it
> was created in). While tha
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation:not tested
I ran make checkworld and everything passed.
I tried installing
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:52:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're suggesting that we disable that security restriction
>> during extension creation, I really can't see how that'd be a
>> good thing ...
> No, I don't mean that. I was just wondering if someone can se
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:52:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If you're suggesting that we disable that security restriction
> during extension creation, I really can't see how that'd be a
> good thing ...
No, I don't mean that. I was just wondering if someone can set
search_path within the SQL scr
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
>> for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command
>> explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an
>> ancient s
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
> for function or operator names, unless the calling SQL command
> explicitly writes "pg_temp.foo(...)" or equivalent. That's an
> ancient security decision, which we're u
Sergei Kornilov writes:
>> test=> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw WITH SCHEMA pg_temp_3;
>> ERROR: function file_fdw_handler() does not exist
> This behavior seems as not related to extensions infrastructure:
Yeah, I think it's just because we won't search the pg_temp schema
for function or operator n
Hi
> I found that this strange error appears after making
> temporary tables.
>
> test=> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE temp (id int);
> CREATE TABLE
> test=> CREATE EXTENSION file_fdw WITH SCHEMA pg_temp_3;
> ERROR: function file_fdw_handler() does not exist
>
> I would try to understand this problem for
Dear Michael, Chris and Tom,
> Adding special cases to extensions strikes me as adding more
> funny corners to the behavior of the db in this regard.
I understand your arguments and its utility.
> For most of extensions, this can randomly finish with strange error
> messages, say that:
> =# crea
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
>> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
>> acceptable.
> Because there are cases where they actually work.
More to the point, it doesn't seem that hard to think of cases
where this
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 08:02:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I'd vote for accepting the extension creation in temporary schemas and
> fixing \dx and \dx+.
Thanks.
> However the error raised by creating extensions
> in temporary schema still looks strange to me. Since we don't search
> funct
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:39:09AM +, Kuroda, Hayato wrote:
> I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
> you drop initial proposal more detail?
> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are
> acceptable.
Because there are cases where they actually work.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:57 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:08:50PM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> > If the point is visibility in \dx it seems to me we want to fix the \dx
> > query.
>
> Yes, I got to think a bit more about that case, and there are cases
> where this actu
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:40 AM Kuroda, Hayato
wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
> you drop initial proposal more detail?
> I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are acceptable.
>
Here's my objection.
Everything a reloc
Dear Michael,
I seem this patch is enough, but could you explain the reason
you drop initial proposal more detail?
I'm not sure why extensions contained by temporary schemas are acceptable.
> Anything depending on a temporary object will be dropped per
> dependency links once the session is over
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:08:50PM +0100, Chris Travers wrote:
> If the point is visibility in \dx it seems to me we want to fix the \dx
> query.
Yes, I got to think a bit more about that case, and there are cases
where this actually works properly as this depends on the objects
defined in the ext
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 12:48 AM Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 08:34:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Then the extension is showing up as beginning to be present for other
> > users. I am mainly wondering if this case has actually been thought
> > about in the past or di
This could probably use a quick note in the docs.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 08:34:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Then the extension is showing up as beginning to be present for other
> users. I am mainly wondering if this case has actually been thought
> about in the past or discussed, and what to do about that and if we
> need to do somethin
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:22:01PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 10:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This combination makes no actual sense, so wouldn't it be better to
>> restrict the case?
>
> Hmm. What exactly doesn't make sense about it?
In my mind, extensions are design
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 10:26 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> This combination makes no actual sense, so wouldn't it be better to
> restrict the case?
Hmm. What exactly doesn't make sense about it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
24 matches
Mail list logo
