> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 18:47
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development; Andreas Pflug
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server instrumentation patch
>
> The security issue is that we didn't w
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Paesold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 24 June 2005 17:53
> > To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server instrumentation pa
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Paesold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 17:53
> To: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server instrumentation patch
>
> > My main concern is that the names are
Dave Page wrote:
> > The current version of the patch only moves those functions he wants.
> > Marc says he wants them all moved, and I agree.
>
> OK - did you see Andreas' response to why he hadn't done that (it was
> actually posted in response to your original query, not Marcs)? In a
> nutshel
Dave Page wrote:
> > I vote for all (possibly corrected) functions to be moved into core.
>
> You have pg_database_size(oid) and database_size(name). Afaict, the
> latter is equivalent to:
>
> SELECT pg_database_size((SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname =
> 'foo'))
>
> My main concern is t
Dave Page wrote:
You have pg_database_size(oid) and database_size(name). Afaict, the
latter is equivalent to:
SELECT pg_database_size((SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname =
'foo'))
The typing is even more e.g. for tables or indexes, though. Of course you
can use the raw form, but why
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Michael Paesold wrote:
Andreas Pflug wrote:
For the second, please supply a patch that moves _all_ of dbsize into
the main server. I think we have agreement on that.
I don't think so. As I mentioned, those views are broken. Do you want
them to be in core anyway?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:10:15PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> You have pg_database_size(oid) and database_size(name). Afaict, the
> latter is equivalent to:
>
> SELECT pg_database_size((SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname =
> 'foo'))
>
> My main concern is that the names are inconsistent for
Michael Paesold wrote:
Andreas Pflug wrote:
For the second, please supply a patch that moves _all_ of dbsize into
the main server. I think we have agreement on that.
I don't think so. As I mentioned, those views are broken. Do you want
them to be in core anyway?
Why is e.g. this one br
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Paesold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 16:48
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server instrumentation patch
>
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
>
> >>F
Andreas Pflug wrote:
For the second, please supply a patch that moves _all_ of dbsize into
the main server. I think we have agreement on that.
I don't think so. As I mentioned, those views are broken. Do you want them
to be in core anyway?
Why is e.g. this one broken:
int8 database_size(n
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 June 2005 14:00
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development; Andreas Pflug
> Subject: Re: Server instrumentation patch
>
> Well, I see Marc replying that dbsize should be moved completely from
> contrib:
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
The reason it happen that way was because we already had the code as a
contrib-style module for pgAdmin. It was posted because we recognised
that it was becoming a PITA for pgAdmin users to compile a new
server-side component and the functions seemed lik
Dave Page wrote:
> The reason it happen that way was because we already had the code as a
> contrib-style module for pgAdmin. It was posted because we recognised
> that it was becoming a PITA for pgAdmin users to compile a new
> server-side component and the functions seemed like they would be usef
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 June 2005 04:08
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: Server instrumentation patch
>
> > > The move of dbsize into the backend is similar. He moves
> the parts of
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 June 2005 18:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development; Andreas Pflug
> Subject: Server instrumentation patch
>
>
> OK, let me address this, but you might not like what I have
> to say. ;-)
>
> Ba
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am not aware they were all addressed, and if you had terminate in
there, which was clearly not addressed, I question whether the others
issues are addressed too. I think we need to re-discuss the idea of
these functions.
Just curious, but if 'all
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > Basically, Andreas' approach for 8.0 was to develop a patch (without
> > posting a proposal or interface), and then argue why pgadmin needs it,
> > but without addressing the real concerns about the patch.
>
> Extending the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Basically, Andreas' approach for 8.0 was to develop a patch (without
posting a proposal or interface), and then argue why pgadmin needs it,
but without addressing the real concerns about the patch.
Extending the logging was to get a means of reading the lo
19 matches
Mail list logo
