Prev: [HACKERS] ERROR: argument to pg_get_expr() must come from system catalogs
Next: bg worker: overview
From: Robert Haas on 16 Jul 2010 07:47
On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> If we continue with the approach I took, we should implement the suggestion to create a new data type for this in 9.1. That would be more waterproof than the changes I made, if we introduce new ways to call functions in the future.

The downside is that it might cause the approach used in the older releases to get less testing.

....Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 17 Jul 2010 16:51
I wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Do you want to go ahead with your plan of changing what's passed in
>> FuncInfo? I won't object if you want to do it, but I wouldn't feel
>> comfortable with backporting such big changes myself.

> I will take a look at it, but not right away.

I spent some more time looking at this, and decided that it's probably
not really a good plan after all. It would be a significant amount of
work for what's basically a dead-end back-branch-only patch, given that
we intend to go with the special-datatype solution for 9.1 and up.
The work aspect is bad enough, but I also share Robert's nervousness
about whether it would get enough testing before going out in releases.
The code that would be getting changed has mutated quite a lot over the
years, to the point where we'd almost have to test each branch
separately to have much confidence in the fixes.

Please see what you can do with plugging the holes in the existing
patch, instead.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Dave Page on 28 Jul 2010 11:58
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
> Are we basically leaving pgAdmin in this state until we come up with a
> fix and need a new minor release? �We pride ourselves in not introducing
> breakage in minor releases, but it has certainly happened in this case,
> and it is making pgAdmin look bad. �Dave, is there a hack you can add to
> pgAdmin to work around the join issue until we can fix the backend?

It wouldn't make much difference if there was - the majority of people
won't get it until they upgrade their server anyway.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 29 Jul 2010 19:17
Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> writes:
> We had a report of the above error from a pgAdmin user testing
> 1.12.0b3 with PG 9.0b3. The (highly simplified) query below works fine
> as a superuser:

> SELECT pg_get_expr(proargdefaults, 'pg_catalog.pg_class'::regclass)
> FROM pg_proc pr
> LEFT OUTER JOIN pg_description des ON des.objoid=pr.oid

> Run as a regular user though, we get the error.

I've applied a (rather hurried) patch for this for 9.0beta4.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Dave Page on 30 Jul 2010 04:07
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(a)pgadmin.org> writes:
>> We had a report of the above error from a pgAdmin user testing
>> 1.12.0b3 with PG 9.0b3. The (highly simplified) query below works fine
>> as a superuser:
>
>> SELECT pg_get_expr(proargdefaults, 'pg_catalog.pg_class'::regclass)
>> � FROM pg_proc pr
>> � LEFT OUTER JOIN pg_description des ON des.objoid=pr.oid
>
>> Run as a regular user though, we get the error.
>
> I've applied a (rather hurried) patch for this for 9.0beta4.

Thanks. Bruce seemed to think it affected 8.4.4 as well - would that
be the case, or is it something else?


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: [HACKERS] ERROR: argument to pg_get_expr() must come from system catalogs
Next: bg worker: overview