Обсуждение: pgAdmin III: error while browsing schema of PG database

Le 07/02/2011 13:01, Nikhil S a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> If one clicks on Postgres (non EDB) database and tries to expand the schema
> tab, then the current git head spits out an error. The offending query
> contains the following comparison
>
> protype = 1;
>
> protype is of type char, so it expects the RHS to be a char. However this
> works ok against an EDB database. Anyways, the fix is to compare protype
> with '1'. This sql works fine on both flavours of databases. Fixing this at
> all relevant locations.
>

I"m not sure I understand. You first said that the bug is on regular
PostgreSQL (and I can't reproduce it on 9.0 regular PostgreSQL). When
you explain the bug and if I read correctly your patch, it fixes EDB
database only.

So is it a fix for EDB databases or PostgreSQL databases?


--
Guillaume
 http://www.postgresql.fr
 http://dalibo.com

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode for
>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS specific.
>>
>
> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number and
> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will not
> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so. But
> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.

Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
lot of other things that would break in that case as well?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode for
>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>> specific.
>>>
>>
>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>> and
>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will not
>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so. But
>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>
> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>
> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>

He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode for
>>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>>> specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>>> and
>>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will not
>>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so. But
>>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>>
>> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
>> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>>
>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>>
>
> He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.

Ah, that makes more sense.

And pgadmin incorrectly identifies that as an oracle-mode ebas server?
In that case, isn't the actual problem that it's identified as edbas
and not pg?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode
>>>>> for
>>>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>>>> specific.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>>>> and
>>>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will
>>>> not
>>>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so.
>>>> But
>>>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>>>
>>> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
>>> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>>>
>>
>> He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.
>
> Ah, that makes more sense.
>
> And pgadmin incorrectly identifies that as an oracle-mode ebas server?
> In that case, isn't the actual problem that it's identified as edbas
> and not pg?
>

It doesn't actually care.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:10, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>>>>> specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>>>>> and
>>>>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will
>>>>> not
>>>>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so.
>>>>> But
>>>>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
>>>> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.
>>
>> Ah, that makes more sense.
>>
>> And pgadmin incorrectly identifies that as an oracle-mode ebas server?
>> In that case, isn't the actual problem that it's identified as edbas
>> and not pg?
>>
>
> It doesn't actually care.

Pre this report doesn't it sound like it should?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:10, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>>>>>> specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
>>>>> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.
>>>
>>> Ah, that makes more sense.
>>>
>>> And pgadmin incorrectly identifies that as an oracle-mode ebas server?
>>> In that case, isn't the actual problem that it's identified as edbas
>>> and not pg?
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't actually care.
>
> Pre this report doesn't it sound like it should?

It *shouldn't*. PG/Oracle mode in PPAS is really just about whether
certain oracle compatibility functions and packages are installed, and
I think the date/time defaults. Oh, and possibly the default casts.
But not the catalog schema.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 22:09, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:10, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:01, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/11, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 08:22, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, the SQL does get fired against a PG database in the EDBAS mode
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> me. I too was puzzled about the minimum version check being EDBAS
>>>>>>>> specific.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just checked. The version checker function checks for the version number
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> also for a bool which is set to true in EDBAS mode. So yeah, this will
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> be repro in pure Postgresql mode operations. Sorry for indicating so.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> the issue defo comes if you try to browse a PG database in EDBAS mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you browse a PG database in EDBAS mode? Isn't there a whole
>>>>>> lot of other things that would break in that case as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean with "EDBAS mode"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He means when edbas is running in PG mode instead of Oracle mode.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, that makes more sense.
>>>>
>>>> And pgadmin incorrectly identifies that as an oracle-mode ebas server?
>>>> In that case, isn't the actual problem that it's identified as edbas
>>>> and not pg?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't actually care.
>>
>> Pre this report doesn't it sound like it should?
>
> It *shouldn't*. PG/Oracle mode in PPAS is really just about whether
> certain oracle compatibility functions and packages are installed, and
> I think the date/time defaults. Oh, and possibly the default casts.
> But not the catalog schema.

Forgive me if I'm being dense... but doesn't this error indicate that
it *isn't* just that?


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm being dense... but doesn't this error indicate that
> it *isn't* just that?

No. Nikhil said (and the patch matches) that EDBAS, in PG mode or
normal/Oracle mode, has the problem. On PostgreSQL, the problem
doesn't exist (and isn't affected by these code paths anyway).


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 22:19, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Forgive me if I'm being dense... but doesn't this error indicate that
>> it *isn't* just that?
>
> No. Nikhil said (and the patch matches) that EDBAS, in PG mode or
> normal/Oracle mode, has the problem. On PostgreSQL, the problem
> doesn't exist (and isn't affected by these code paths anyway).

Hmm. I think I'm clearly not getting how this works, so I should
probably just leave it to those who do :)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Thanks - applied.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Nikhil S <nixmisc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If one clicks on Postgres (non EDB) database and tries to expand the schema
> tab, then the current git head spits out an error. The offending query
> contains the following comparison
>
> protype = 1;
>
> protype is of type char, so it expects the RHS to be a char. However this
> works ok against an EDB database. Anyways, the fix is to compare protype
> with '1'. This sql works fine on both flavours of databases. Fixing this at
> all relevant locations.
>
> Regards,
> Nikhils
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>
>



--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company