On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what was pljava doing calling SetUserId?
If I'd known about that I'd have thought harder about removing the
function; but it's not clear to me why a PL should be doing that.
pljava wants to run code as the session user when inside
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turns out it's not just 83RC1, but all of the security releases, which
> will require different pljava packages for the patch versions before/after
> the security changes.
Just out of curiosity, what was pljava doing calling SetUserId?
If I'd known about
"Roberts, Jon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Executing a function should never require privileges on the underlying
> objects referenced in it. The function should always run with the rights of
> the owner of the function, not the user executing it.
>
You might want to climb off that soapbox
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Kris Jurka wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Jan Ischebeck wrote:
8.3beta3 and 4 have worked perfectly with the provided pljava ddl, just
with 8.3-rc1 it doesn't work anymore.
8.3RC1 changed the function definition for SetUserId, so pljava needs
some changes and a rebuild.
>
> Jon,
>
> > I always put security definer as I really think that should be the
> > default behavior. Anyway, your function should run faster.
>
> That's not a real good idea. A security definer function is like an SUID
> shell script; only to be used with great care.
>
You'll have to expl
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:30:10PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > We cannot perform partition exclusion using this type of WHERE clause at
> > > planning time because the CURRENT DATE function is STABLE.
> >
> > We can do the exact same thing -- if it's a direction people want to
> > take. In fa
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Jan Ischebeck wrote:
8.3beta3 and 4 have worked perfectly with the provided pljava ddl, just
with 8.3-rc1 it doesn't work anymore.
8.3RC1 changed the function definition for SetUserId, so it pljava needs
some changes and a rebuild. Will fix.
Kris Jurka
Jon,
> I always put security definer as I really think that should be the
> default behavior. Anyway, your function should run faster.
That's not a real good idea. A security definer function is like an SUID
shell script; only to be used with great care.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ S
Sim Zacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just upgraded my database server from 8.0.1 to 8.2.4
> Most things went very well, but I have a couple of queries that really slowed
> down with the new server.
The core of the problem seems to be the rowcount misestimation here:
> -> Merge Left Jo
Hi,
I'm following the 8.3 beta releases for some time now, mostly using the
Win32 with Installer package.
8.3beta3 and 4 have worked perfectly with the provided pljava ddl, just
with 8.3-rc1 it doesn't work anymore.
i.e.
1. automatic installation of Pl/Java via Installer fails.
2. manual
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:49 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > So, I get the message that you really want the DDL approach and agree
> > that you've demonstrated there are use cases that need it that you are
> > interested in. That's fine by me as long as we can each work on parts of
> > it to get it
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:43 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:25:00AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 03:06 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > > If the exclusion is executor driven, the planner cannot help but
> > > create a seq scan plan. The planner will thin
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:51:04PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 03:06 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> > > If people with large tables like partitioning why is Oracle moving
> > > towards automated partitioning in 11g? Automated partitioning was one of
> >
> > Have you used Ora
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:25:00AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 03:06 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > If the exclusion is executor driven, the planner cannot help but
> > create a seq scan plan. The planner will think you're returning 100X
> > rows when really you end up returni
hris Browne wrote:
> _On The Other Hand_, there will be attributes that are *NOT* set in a
> more-or-less chronological order, and Segment Exclusion will be pretty
> useless for these attributes.
Short summary:
With the appropriate clustering, ISTM Segment Exclusion
can be useful on all colum
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 03:06 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > If people with large tables like partitioning why is Oracle moving
> > towards automated partitioning in 11g? Automated partitioning was one of
>
> Have you used Oracle's partitioning?
Since you ask, yep, certified on it, plus DB2, Tera
Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, since they are (or should be) architecture-independent, what's the
point? Out-of-tree builds are intended to support building for multiple
architectures in parallel; but there's no reason to force independent
reconstruction
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm generating a diff between 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 and I get this:
>
> > $ cvs diff -r REL8_2_5 -r REL8_2_6 > /tmp/8.2.5-8.2.6.patch
> > cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6 is not in file contrib/adminpack/REA
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, since they are (or should be) architecture-independent, what's the
> point? Out-of-tree builds are intended to support building for multiple
> architectures in parallel; but there's no reason to force independent
> reconstructions of these common der
I always put security definer as I really think that should be the default
behavior. Anyway, your function should run faster.
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Stehule [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Roberts, Jon
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; pg
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm generating a diff between 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 and I get this:
> $ cvs diff -r REL8_2_5 -r REL8_2_6 > /tmp/8.2.5-8.2.6.patch
> cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6 is not in file contrib/adminpack/README.adminpack
> cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6 is not in file contrib/btree_
Hi,
I'm generating a diff between 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 and I get this:
$ cvs diff -r REL8_2_5 -r REL8_2_6 > /tmp/8.2.5-8.2.6.patch
cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6 is not in file contrib/adminpack/README.adminpack
cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6 is not in file contrib/btree_gist/README.btree_gist
cvs diff: tag REL8_2_6
small non important note: your function is very expensive
exactly same but faster is:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION fn_to_date(p_date varchar, p_format varchar)
RETURNS timestamp AS $$
SELECT to_timestamp(replace($1, ' ', ''), replace($2, ' ', ''));
$$ LANGUAGE SQL STRICT IMMUTABLE;
or
CREATE OR
> -Original Message-
> On Oracle:
>
> SQL> select to_date('31-DEC-200700:00:00', 'dd-mon- hh24:mi:ss') from
> dual;
>
> TO_DATE('
> -
> 31-DEC-07
>
> On PostgreSQL:
>
> select to_date('31-DEC-200700:00:00', 'dd-mon- hh24:mi:ss');
>to_date
> --
> 200700-
On Oracle:
SQL> select to_date('31-DEC-200700:00:00', 'dd-mon- hh24:mi:ss') from
dual;
TO_DATE('
-
31-DEC-07
On PostgreSQL:
select to_date('31-DEC-200700:00:00', 'dd-mon- hh24:mi:ss');
to_date
--
200700-12-31
Now the input value is probably a mistake. But acco
Hi,
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
because of the contention. Am i missing something
here? While Vacuum is reading the DSM, operations may not be able to
update the bits. We need to put the DSM in shared memory, if all the
processes are going to update it, whereas if Vacuum is going to form
On Jan 10, 2008 3:43 PM, Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > But i am just thinking of creating the DSM
> > by reading through the WAL Logs, instead of asking the Inserts, updates
> > and deletes to do the DSM creation.
>
> What's the advan
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:04 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
What do you think about letting the database system know the split point
vs it having to find optimal split points automatically?
For me, managing the table's files can be separate from the chunking
that allo
Hi,
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
But i am just thinking of creating the DSM
by reading through the WAL Logs, instead of asking the Inserts, updates
and deletes to do the DSM creation.
What's the advantage of that? What's wrong with collecting the
information for DSM at transaction proces
Markus,
I was re-thinking about what you said. I feel, if we read the WAL
through archiver(Where the archiver is switched on), which anyway reads the
entire WAL Log, it might save some CPU cycles off updates, inserts and
deletes.
The question is about reducing I/Os and i have no do
30 matches
Mail list logo
