Thread: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options
pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options Previously, pg_upgrade docs recommended using .pgpass if using MD5 authentication to avoid being prompted for a password. Turns out pg_ctl never prompts for a password, so MD5 requires .pgpass --- document that. Also recommend 'peer' for authentication too. Backpatch back to 9.1. Branch ------ REL9_2_STABLE Details ------- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/921a0b20138c73a3de3067c89cf7424b3d22c1ef Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/pgupgrade.sgml | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:43:39PM +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options > Previously, pg_upgrade docs recommended using .pgpass if using MD5 > authentication to avoid being prompted for a password. Turns out pg_ctl > never prompts for a password, so MD5 requires .pgpass --- document that. > Also recommend 'peer' for authentication too. > Backpatch back to 9.1. When I make a commit like this, should I send an email to hackers that basically duplicates this information? I assume no. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:43:39PM +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options > > Previously, pg_upgrade docs recommended using .pgpass if using MD5 > > authentication to avoid being prompted for a password. Turns out pg_ctl > > never prompts for a password, so MD5 requires .pgpass --- document that. > > Also recommend 'peer' for authentication too. > > Backpatch back to 9.1. > > When I make a commit like this, should I send an email to hackers that > basically duplicates this information? I assume no. Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you have committed it. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:43:39PM +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options > > > Previously, pg_upgrade docs recommended using .pgpass if using MD5 > > > authentication to avoid being prompted for a password. Turns out pg_ctl > > > never prompts for a password, so MD5 requires .pgpass --- document that. > > > Also recommend 'peer' for authentication too. > > > Backpatch back to 9.1. > > > > When I make a commit like this, should I send an email to hackers that > > basically duplicates this information? I assume no. > > Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the > patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, > push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you > have committed it. I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see others doing that. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the
>> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input,
>> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you
>> have committed it.
> I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see
> others doing that.
I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of
time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it
was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed.
I do think it's sometimes polite to follow up that way to a bug
submitter, or if the discussion was in some other non-hackers list,
because then the audience might not be following commits. But I don't
think it's particularly useful in pgsql-hackers threads.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you > >> have committed it. > > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see > > others doing that. > > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed. I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the > > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, > > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you > > >> have committed it. > > > > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see > > > others doing that. > > > > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of > > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it > > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed. > > I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email > threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the > loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch > thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is > missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item. +1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Jul 11, 2013 11:39 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the
> > > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input,
> > > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you
> > > >> have committed it.
> > >
> > > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see
> > > > others doing that.
> > >
> > > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of
> > > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it
> > > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed.
> >
> > I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email
> > threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the
> > loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch
> > thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is
> > missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item.
>
> +1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can
> more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit
> notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the
> pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread.
+1. It also makes for a nice way to quickly know if you need not do any further research or not.
/Magnus
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:38:58PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email > > threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the > > loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch > > thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is > > missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item. > > +1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can > more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit > notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the > pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread. Another reason supporting "patch applied" emails is that most threads with patches include a CC with the original problem reporter, and I can't assume that person is subscribed to committers, and I like to let them know that their issue was resolved, and which release will contain their fix (minor or major release). I was actually thinking of asking committers to be more proactive about closing out these theads with "patch applied" emails, and hopefully some mention in the thread of whether the patch was applied to head-only or back branches. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +