Re: Server instrumentation patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Server instrumentation patch |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200506220307.j5M37Vn10941@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Server instrumentation patch (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>) |
Responses |
Re: Server instrumentation patch
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
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 logging was to get a means of reading the log file without > console access, with *any* client. > The proposal to develop the generic file functions came from a Mr Bruce > Momjian. Yes, you are right I helped with the initial file stuff, but not with the terminate nor the dbsize. I can't remember if I got involved before or after the initial patch, so you are right. > > Saying > > pgadmin needs it just isn't enough to get a patch in. > > Never said that. It's needed by dbadmins without console access. Needed and having it added are different issues. As I remember there were security concerns about having the backend able to read/write random files. > > There are the > > issues of security and maintainability that have to be addressed, > > All issues were discussed and solved. 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. > > and > > in the limited time we had to do this in 8.0, it was clear the patch > > should not be applied. > > > > Now, in 8.1, the same thing has happened. Two weeks before feature > > freeze, > > I posted it on June 1st. Uh, you are right it wasn't June 22, but it was June 10, not June 1: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00226.php > > with no discussion, the patch appears, and makes no reference to > > concerns raised during the 8.0 discussion. > > RTFM. The lengthy original discussion which addressed _all_ issues is > referenced. Is that true? I don't remember that conclusion myself. Do others? > pg_terminate_backend is even > > in the patch, and there is no mention or attempt to address concerns we > > had in 8.0. > > I never intended to address the issues, I wanted to address the every > day problem to kill a backend without killing the server. Drop it, for > god's sake. Well, here you are saying you didn't address concerns about terminate, and just posted it because it was needed. That is my point. > > The move of dbsize into the backend is similar. He moves the parts of > > dbsize the pgadmin needs into the backend, but makes no mention or > > change to /contrib/dbsize to adjust it to the movement of the code. He > > has since posted and updated version that fixes this, I think, but > > again, we have to discuss how this is to be done --- do we move all the > > dbsize functions into the backend, some, or none? Do the other dbsize > > functions stay in /contrib or get deleted? > > This needs discussion, not a patch. And because there are so many > > assumptions made in the patch, the patch committers look unreasonable > > asking for X changes to his patch, when in fact he made X assumptions in > > the patch and never asked anyone before developing the patch about those > > assumptions. > > This was discussed lengthy starting May 11th, except for the broken > dbsize functions. My post is the result from that. Really? Where? I don't remember anything about it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
pgsql-hackers by date: