2011/6/28 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 28 16:19:02 -0400 2011:
>
>> there should be a format (syntax) error. If somebody breaks a pg_ident
>> and will do a reload, then all ident mapping is lost.
>
> No, the file is not actually parsed until the auth verificat
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 28 16:19:02 -0400 2011:
> there should be a format (syntax) error. If somebody breaks a pg_ident
> and will do a reload, then all ident mapping is lost.
No, the file is not actually parsed until the auth verification runs.
The incorrect tokens are
2011/6/28 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of dom jun 26 13:10:13 -0400 2011:
>> Hello
>>
>> >
>> > I have touched next_token() and next_token_expand() a bit more, because
>> > it seemed to me that they could be simplified further (the bit about
>> > returning the comma in t
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of dom jun 26 13:10:13 -0400 2011:
> Hello
>
> >
> > I have touched next_token() and next_token_expand() a bit more, because
> > it seemed to me that they could be simplified further (the bit about
> > returning the comma in the token, instead of being a boole
Hello
>
> I have touched next_token() and next_token_expand() a bit more, because
> it seemed to me that they could be simplified further (the bit about
> returning the comma in the token, instead of being a boolean return,
> seemed strange). Please let me know what you think.
>
I am thinking, s
On 24 June 2011 03:48, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have touched next_token() and next_token_expand() a bit more, because
> it seemed to me that they could be simplified further (the bit about
> returning the comma in the token, instead of being a boolean return,
> seemed strange). Please let me kno
On 22 June 2011 14:01, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ook, now is clean, so this is majority opinion.
>
> Please, can you send a final patch.
I don't have any further changes to add to Alvaro's version 3, which
is already up on the CF app.
Cheers,
BJ
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacke
2011/6/22 Brendan Jurd :
> On 22 June 2011 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
because >>pamservice<< - is known keyword, but 'pamservice' is some
literal without any mean. You should to use a makr
On 22 June 2011 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>>> because >>pamservice<< - is known keyword, but 'pamservice' is some
>>> literal without any mean. You should to use a makro token_is_keyword
>>> more oft
On Jun 21, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On the contrary -- we should support it but not document it.
+1.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 11:04:11 -0400 2011:
>> 2011/6/21 Tom Lane :
>
>> > AFAICS, this is only important in places where the syntax allows either
>> > a keyword or an identifier. If only a keyword is possible, there is no
>> > value in rej
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 11:04:11 -0400 2011:
> 2011/6/21 Tom Lane :
> > AFAICS, this is only important in places where the syntax allows either
> > a keyword or an identifier. If only a keyword is possible, there is no
> > value in rejecting it because it's quoted. An
2011/6/21 Tom Lane :
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>>> because >>pamservice<< - is known keyword, but 'pamservice' is some
>>> literal without any mean. You should to use a makro token_is_keyword
>>> more often.
>
>> Yeah, I wo
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>> because >>pamservice<< - is known keyword, but 'pamservice' is some
>> literal without any mean. You should to use a makro token_is_keyword
>> more often.
> Yeah, I wondered about this too (same w
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:15:50AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 10:04:26 -0400 2011:
> > 2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
> > > Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
> > >
> > >> yes - it has a sense. Quoting changes
2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 10:04:26 -0400 2011:
>> 2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
>> > Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>> >
>> >> yes - it has a sense. Quoting changes sense from keyword to literal.
>> >> But
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 10:04:26 -0400 2011:
> 2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
> > Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
> >
> >> yes - it has a sense. Quoting changes sense from keyword to literal.
> >> But then I see a significant inconsis
2011/6/21 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
>
>> yes - it has a sense. Quoting changes sense from keyword to literal.
>> But then I see a significant inconsistency - every know keywords
>> should be only tokens.
>>
>> else if (strcmp
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of mar jun 21 00:59:44 -0400 2011:
> yes - it has a sense. Quoting changes sense from keyword to literal.
> But then I see a significant inconsistency - every know keywords
> should be only tokens.
>
> else if (strcmp(token, "pamservice") == 0)
> -
2011/6/21 Brendan Jurd :
> On 21 June 2011 14:34, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I don't understand to using a macro
>>
>> #define token_is_keyword(t, k) (!t->quoted && strcmp(t->string, k) == 0)
>>
>> because you disallowed a quoting?
>
> Well, a token can only be treated as a special keyword if it is
On 21 June 2011 14:34, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I don't understand to using a macro
>
> #define token_is_keyword(t, k) (!t->quoted && strcmp(t->string, k) == 0)
>
> because you disallowed a quoting?
Well, a token can only be treated as a special keyword if it is unquoted.
As an example, in the 'd
2011/6/21 Brendan Jurd :
> On 21 June 2011 13:51, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I have one question. I can't find any rules for work with tokens, etc,
>> where is quotes allowed and disallowed?
>>
>> I don't see any other issues.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question, but quotes are allowed
> anyw
On 21 June 2011 13:51, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I have one question. I can't find any rules for work with tokens, etc,
> where is quotes allowed and disallowed?
>
> I don't see any other issues.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but quotes are allowed
anywhere and they always act to remove a
2011/6/20 Alvaro Herrera :
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 20 12:19:37 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun jun 20 11:34:25 -0400 2011:
>>
>> > b) probably you can simplify a memory management using own two
>> > persistent memory context - and you can swap
On 21 June 2011 11:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I realize I took out most of the fun of this patch from you, but -- are
> you still planning to do some more exhaustive testing of it? I checked
> some funny scenarios (including include files and groups) but it's not
> all that unlikely that I misse
Excerpts from Brendan Jurd's message of lun jun 20 20:06:39 -0400 2011:
> On 21 June 2011 06:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 20 12:19:37 -0400 2011:
> >> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun jun 20 11:34:25 -0400 2011:
> >>
> >> > b) probably
On 21 June 2011 06:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of lun jun 20 12:19:37 -0400 2011:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun jun 20 11:34:25 -0400 2011:
>>
>> > b) probably you can simplify a memory management using own two
>> > persistent memory context
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of lun jun 20 11:34:25 -0400 2011:
> b) probably you can simplify a memory management using own two
> persistent memory context - and you can swap it. Then functions like
> free_hba_record, clean_hba_list, free_lines should be removed.
Yeah, I reworked the pa
sorry
> a) you don't use macro "token_matches" consistently
should be
a) you don't use macro "token_is_keyword" consistently
it should be used for all keywords
Regards
Pavel Stehule
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
h
Hello Brendan,
I checked your patch, it is applied cleanly and I don't see any mayor
problem. This patch does all what is expected.
I have two minor comments
a) you don't use macro "token_matches" consistently
func: parse_hba_line
<-->if (strcmp(token->string, "local") == 0)
should be
On 18 June 2011 13:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Is this really a WIP patch? I'm playing a bit with it currently, seems
> fairly sane.
>
In this case, the WIP designation is meant to convey "warning: only
casual testing has beeen done". I tried it out with various
permutations of pg_hba.conf, and
Excerpts from Brendan Jurd's message of vie jun 17 19:31:41 -0400 2011:
> On 16 June 2011 00:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I try to apply your patch, but it is finished with some failed hinks.
> >
> > Please, can you refresh your patch
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for taking a look. I have attached
On 16 June 2011 00:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I try to apply your patch, but it is finished with some failed hinks.
>
> Please, can you refresh your patch
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for taking a look. I have attached v2 of the patch, as against
current HEAD. I've also added the new patch to the CF app.
33 matches
Mail list logo
