On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 07:27:11AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 06:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> So I'm in favour of fixing the docs but I'm not keen on changing the
> >> SQL syntax in a way that just kind of papers over part of
* Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 06:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> So I'm in favour of fixing the docs but I'm not keen on changing the
> >> SQL syntax in a way that just kind of papers over part of the
> >> problems.
On 03/16/2017 06:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> So I'm in favour of fixing the docs but I'm not keen on changing the
>> SQL syntax in a way that just kind of papers over part of the
>> problems.
>
> I agree. I think that trying to design new S
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> So I'm in favour of fixing the docs but I'm not keen on changing the
> SQL syntax in a way that just kind of papers over part of the
> problems.
I agree. I think that trying to design new SQL syntax at this point
is unlikely to be a good ide
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 04:48:21PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 12 March 2017 at 06:51, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that the user visible aspects of this should be deprecated
> > and correct syntax provided. But perhaps that is overkill.
>
> FWIW, in my experience, pretty much nobod
On 12 March 2017 at 06:51, Joe Conway wrote:
> My opinion is that the user visible aspects of this should be deprecated
> and correct syntax provided. But perhaps that is overkill.
FWIW, in my experience, pretty much nobody understands the pretty
tangled behaviour of "WITH [ENCRYPTED] PASSWORD",
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 06:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> As discussed here:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/98cafcd0-5557-0bdf-4837-0f2b7782d...@joeconway.com
>> We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define
>> what ac
On 03/09/2017 06:16 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As discussed here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/98cafcd0-5557-0bdf-4837-0f2b7782d...@joeconway.com
> We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define
> what actually is hashing, which is confusing.
>
> Attached is a
Hi all,
As discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/98cafcd0-5557-0bdf-4837-0f2b7782d...@joeconway.com
We are using in documentation and code comments "encryption" to define
what actually is hashing, which is confusing.
Attached is a patch for HEAD to change the documentation to matc
