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.
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 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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
