Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh'
От | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.3.95.980224104709.29869O-100000@hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh' (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh'
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > Actually, I'm not married to db_* for views...it was a "quick fix" > > > > to ensure that things still worked. Whatever we decide on, both Julie and > > > > Peter, at a minimum, need to know relatively soon. I know in Julie's > > > > case, she does do a call to pg_user...I let her know tonight that she > > > > needs to change it to db_user, for the *current* code... > > > > > > Good. I didn't want the db_ namespace pollution. I will call it > > > pg_user_no_passwd, and make it a view, not a rule. Is that OK with > > > everyone? > > > > Works for me... > > How? When I create a view the way Bruce explained (update pg_class), > my backend crashes on SELECT FROM view during the rewrite. For some > reason the rewrite handler cannot get the rule locks correctly. Ppl are taking me a slight bit too literally :( "Works for me"...I like the idea...not necessarily implemented it though :)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: