Thread: v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ...
Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated has been done? Robert Treat On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:18, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch > up ... let me know if there are any problems .. >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like > the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated > has been done? No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > > Robert Treat > > > On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:18, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch > > up ... let me know if there are any problems .. > > > > > >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51 > To: Robert Treat > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ... > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone > > gone over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure > > things like the websites getting updated or perhaps getting > rpm builds > > coordinated has been done? > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc... Regards, Dave
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] > > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51 > > To: Robert Treat > > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ... > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone > > > gone over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure > > > things like the websites getting updated or perhaps getting > > rpm builds > > > coordinated has been done? > > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc... The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't really news worthy ... :(
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone > > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like > > the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated > > has been done? > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has changed that > needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > Surly the websites will still need to be updated, rpm's need to be built, things like that... Robert Treat
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] > > > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51 > > > To: Robert Treat > > > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ... > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone > > > > gone over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure > > > > things like the websites getting updated or perhaps getting > > > rpm builds > > > > coordinated has been done? > > > > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has > > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > > > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc... > > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't > really news worthy ... :( > I think changing major version of libpq is an important thing to be mentioned. > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't > really news worthy ... :( I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists, you might find out about a bug in a release note and upgrade when you otherwise might not. www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site (freshmeat, slashdot, etc...)
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some > > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't > > really news worthy ... :( > > I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists, > you might find out about a bug in a release note and upgrade when you > otherwise might not. > > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site > (freshmeat, slashdot, etc...) Okay, that I agree on ... note that my press list contains alot more then that, most of which wouldn't be appropriate for a minor release ... maybe we need to setup a seperate 'minor release' list? Please note, I have no problems sending it out to a bunch of email addresses, I'm just questioning whether it makes sense to do so ... freshmeat not withstanding, since I don't see it as much of an annoucne site as a centralized list of OSS software ...
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 09:51, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone gone > > > over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure things like > > > the websites getting updated or perhaps getting rpm builds coordinated > > > has been done? > > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has changed that > > needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > > > > Surly the websites will still need to be updated, rpm's need to be > built, things like that... Of course, but that has nothing to do with announcing to a wider press audience ... :)
scott.marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >>The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some >>bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't >>really news worthy ... :( > > > I don't know, if you're a postgresql user and you don't read these lists, > you might find out about a bug in a release note and upgrade when you > otherwise might not. > > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site > (freshmeat, slashdot, etc...) At the very least the PostgreSQL website team should be loudly notified so we can confirm the needed links have been updated prior to the release announcement. It probably wouldn't hurt to go through a proper release process, but determine which steps are optional or not needed for smaller releases. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote: > > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site > (freshmeat, slashdot, etc...) I read linuxtoday and /. daily. Linuxtoday is OK but /. would be an almost waste of another 800 comments of postgresql v/s mysql. Just a thought.. ByeShridhar -- Manly's Maxim: Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 08:53, Dave Page wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] > > Sent: 18 December 2002 14:51 > > To: Robert Treat > > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ... > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > Is this going to be announced to a wider press audience? Has anyone > > > gone over the "list of things to do when we release" to make sure > > > things like the websites getting updated or perhaps getting > > rpm builds > > > coordinated has been done? > > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ... > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc... > > Regards, Dave > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org I agree it should be considered. It helps build mind share, which I think we can all agree is somewhat lacking for PostgreSQL compared to MySQL. It helps build the impression that PostgreSQL doesn't just sit idle between major releases. It allows a potential user base to see "PostgreSQL" more frequently and build interest. It let's people know that PostgreSQL is constantly being improved. Mind share is a powerful thing and as any advertiser will tell you, press releases is one of the best ways to get the word out. Greg -- Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> Copeland Computer Consulting
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>> Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> really news worthy ... :(
I think this is exactly the difference between "press release" and
"technical announcement" that Marc was getting beat up on just a couple
weeks ago. A bug-fix-only update is not worthy of a press release.
It is worthy of a technical announcement --- which is exactly what Marc
plans to push out to pgsql-announce as soon as the FTP mirrors are up
to date.
regards, tom lane
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: 18 December 2002 16:34 > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: Dave Page; Robert Treat; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.3.1 tar ready ... please check it ... > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote: > >> Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc... > > > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed > > some bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features > added to them, > > so isn't really news worthy ... :( > > I think this is exactly the difference between "press > release" and "technical announcement" that Marc was getting > beat up on just a couple weeks ago. A bug-fix-only update is > not worthy of a press release. It is worthy of a technical > announcement --- which is exactly what Marc plans to push out > to pgsql-announce as soon as the FTP mirrors are up to date. I think Marc got beat up over the fact that we (pgsql-*) got the press release, not the gory details, rather than whether or not we sent a press release to other sites. I would suggest: - pgsql-announce gets the tech version for every release. - Marc's full contacts list get the major version notices in press format with a link to the tech version. - Marc's smaller techy contacts list (freshmeat, /. etc.) get a small press release with a link to the tech version for minor releases as well. Regards, Dave
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch
> up ... let me know if there are any problems ..
Tarball looks good from here.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote: > - pgsql-announce gets the tech version for every release. > - Marc's full contacts list get the major version notices in press > format with a link to the tech version. > - Marc's smaller techy contacts list (freshmeat, /. etc.) get a small > press release with a link to the tech version for minor releases as > well. Which sounds cool to me ... now, freshmeat I have to go to and modify locally ... does anyone have a list of contact email(s) that are apropriate for 'the techy contacts list'?
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch > > up ... let me know if there are any problems .. > > Tarball looks good from here. Great, put out a short techy announcement this evening when I geth home ...
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > > > No, we don't do that with minor releases ... nothing has
> > > > changed that needs to be announced, other then a few bugs fixed ...
> > >
> > > Maybe we should? The more publicity the better etc...
> >
> > The problem is that there is nothing to announce ... "Hi, we fixed some
> > bugs"? :) minor releases don't have any features added to them, so isn't
> > really news worthy ... :(
> >
>
> I think changing major version of libpq is an important thing to be
> mentioned.
It is mentioned in the release notes text:
Migration to version 7.3.1 A dump/restore is *not*
requiredfor those running 7.3. However, it should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has a
newmajor version number for this release, which may require recompilation of client code in certain cases.
-- 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
Marc G. Fournier writes: > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch > up ... let me know if there are any problems .. Plenty... The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one factual mistake that needs to be fixed. The HISTORY file needs to be reformatted because the line breaks look pretty ugly. The list of supported platforms needs to be revised and all platforms that have not received a confirmation yet have to be moved to unsupported. The INSTALL file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the SSL incompatibility needs to be added or a fix needs to be mentioned in the list of changes. Someone also wrote me that a translation file is stuck in the pgsql-patches queue. It would be good if we could get that one in as well. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Bruce Momjian writes: > A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it > should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has > a new major version number for this release, which may require > recompilation of client code in certain cases. s/certain/all/ -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it > > should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has > > a new major version number for this release, which may require > > recompilation of client code in certain cases. > > s/certain/all/ I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile will not be required. -- 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
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier writes: > > > Going to announce later this evening to give the mirrors a chance to catch > > up ... let me know if there are any problems .. > > Plenty... > > The release notes are missing at least one item and contain at least one > factual mistake that needs to be fixed. The HISTORY file needs to be > reformatted because the line breaks look pretty ugly. The list of How do you do that? Do you manually reformat the whole file after you generate it, or do you just cut-paste the new release info into /HISTORY so the old manual formatting remains? It did line break badly. > supported platforms needs to be revised and all platforms that have not > received a confirmation yet have to be moved to unsupported. The INSTALL Do we do that during the first minor? I can do that if this is the time. > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it? > SSL incompatibility needs to be added or a fix needs to be mentioned in > the list of changes. Someone also wrote me that a translation file is > stuck in the pgsql-patches queue. It would be good if we could get that > one in as well. -- 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
If it's all, perhaps we should reword as: ... has a new major version number for this release and will require recompilation of client code. Robert Treat On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 14:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it > > should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has > > a new major version number for this release, which may require > > recompilation of client code in certain cases. > > s/certain/all/ >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date > > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the > > Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it? Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning instead of this evening, just want to make sure that its critical enough ...
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > file needs to be updated to get the list of supported platforms up-to-date > > > and the references to 7.3 need to be changed to 7.3.1. A note about the > > > > Marc applied the patch after I stamped it. Marc, do you want me to do it? > > Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a > rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my > only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning > instead of this evening, just want to make sure that its critical enough > ... Not sure. The tarball has 7.3 mentioned in the INSTALL file, not 7.3.1. I only today saw how to update that, and I have added it to my checklist. I think the port changes can wait for 7.3.2. I don't think the SSL change is critical to be mentioned because it only opens up something that was disabled in 7.3. -- 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
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it > > > should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has > > > a new major version number for this release, which may require > > > recompilation of client code in certain cases. > > > > s/certain/all/ > > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile > will not be required. > It's not always safe to install over existing previous installation. I think special mention about recompiling DBD::Pg would be important > Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
Oleg Bartunov wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > > > A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3. However, it > > > > should be noted that the main PostgreSQL interface library, libpq, has > > > > a new major version number for this release, which may require > > > > recompilation of client code in certain cases. > > > > > > s/certain/all/ > > > > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing > > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile > > will not be required. > > > > It's not always safe to install over existing previous installation. Uh, that's what we recommend right now. How is it wrong? > I think special mention about recompiling DBD::Pg would be important Uh, we don't distribute DBD:Pg. -- 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
Bruce Momjian writes: > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile > will not be required. That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a dump/restore will not be required. ;-) Installing new code directly over old one without deleting is an extremely bad strategy. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Bruce Momjian writes: > How do you do that? Do you manually reformat the whole file after you > generate it, or do you just cut-paste the new release info into > /HISTORY so the old manual formatting remains? It did line break badly. I put in the changes I had in mind and reformatted it, so as far as I'm concerned it's good to go now. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Marc G. Fournier writes: > Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a > rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my > only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning > instead of this evening, just want to make sure that its critical enough > ... Well the changes are mostly about elimating incorrect information from the release notes, which is surely critical, and putting in the correct version number, which is also critical. And neither of these things can wait for 7.3.2, because that would kind of defeat the point. If you jump the gun with building the tarballs that's the price you have to pay. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I was unclear on that. If they install right over their existing
> > pgsql/lib directory, the old libpq will still be there, so a recompile
> > will not be required.
>
> That's kind of like saying, if you keep using PostgreSQL 7.2 then a
> dump/restore will not be required. ;-) Installing new code directly over
> old one without deleting is an extremely bad strategy.
Well, our release notes say:
A dump/restore is *not* required for those running 7.3.
and INSTALL says:
4. Installing The Files Note: If you are upgrading an existing system and are going to install the
newfiles over the old ones, then you should have backed up your data and shut down the old server by now, as
explained in the Section called If You Are Upgrading above.
In fact, we are a unclear about exactly when you need a dump/reload and
when you don't. Seems the INSTALL file should have a clearer setup for
folks upgrading from 7.3 to 7.3.1.
-- 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
'K, I'm going to remove the tar files ... Bruce, can you go through these and get them fixed up? Peter, I have to take part of the blame away from Tom ... I'm on the road tomrorow afternoon to Ontario, and won't be back online until *late* Fri, so we kinda rushed it all ... Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything? On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier writes: > > > Just curious as to whether any of this is critical enough to force a > > rebuild of the .tar.gz files, or can they wait until v7.3.2? That is my > > only concern ... we can do it, and I can do the announce in the morning > > instead of this evening, just want to make sure that its critical enough > > ... > > Well the changes are mostly about elimating incorrect information from the > release notes, which is surely critical, and putting in the correct > version number, which is also critical. And neither of these things can > wait for 7.3.2, because that would kind of defeat the point. If you jump > the gun with building the tarballs that's the price you have to pay. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net > >
At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak >the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything? Seeing the setting for MAX_FSM_RELATIONS bumped to 1000 would be good (patch already sent) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Warner | __---_____ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \ (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_ Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \ Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ | Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________-- PGP key available upon request, | / and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. Should we? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Warner wrote: > At 11:26 PM 18/12/2002 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >Tom, we tried ... I'll do up the tar ball on Friday, if everyone can tak > >the next day and a bit to make sure we haven't missed anything? > > Seeing the setting for MAX_FSM_RELATIONS bumped to 1000 would be good > (patch already sent) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Philip Warner | __---_____ > Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \ > (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_ > Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \ > Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ | > Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| > | --________-- > PGP key available upon request, | / > and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/ > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- 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
Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > On 18 Dec 2002 at 8:54, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > www.linuxtoday.com has weekly updates from many gnu / OSS projects which > > are far less interesting than our 7.3.1 release is. I could see posting a > > minor upgrade release notice there and on other OSS news web site > > (freshmeat, slashdot, etc...) > > I read linuxtoday and /. daily. Linuxtoday is OK but /. would be an almost > waste of another 800 comments of postgresql v/s mysql. That's okay, another 800 comments of PostgreSQL vs MySQL on Slashdot would increase the load on Slashdot's MySQL server, thus making it slower and illustrating the point that they should be using PostgreSQL instead. [ ducks ] :-) -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config. >Should we? Yes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Warner | __---_____ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \ (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_ Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \ Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ | Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________-- PGP key available upon request, | / and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote: > At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. > > Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config. > > > >Should we? > > Yes. I concur. The problems of a too-low fsm setting are serious, and I can't see setting fsm to 1000 creating problems for anyone. That's actually still a pretty low number for production servers.
scott.marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote: > > > At 10:49 PM 18/12/2002 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >I don't think we can bump that up in a minor. > > > > Why not? It's a relatively serious problem with the default config. > > > > > > >Should we? > > > > Yes. > > I concur. The problems of a too-low fsm setting are serious, and I can't > see setting fsm to 1000 creating problems for anyone. That's actually > still a pretty low number for production servers. OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment? -- 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
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
>
> It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
> such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
> have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
> making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
> there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
It would have to be 7.3.2, I think.
-- 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
OK, what additional things need to be done for 7.3.1? As far as I know, we have done everything. -- 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
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
>
> It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
> such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
> have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
> making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
> there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
I don't quite understand why there's reluctance to change this,
though. What will it break?
It's probably sufficient to put something in the release notes
indicating that MAX_FSM_RELATIONS has increased and that you should
manually set it back to 100 in the config file if the change causes
problems.
With even relatively old systems having 128 megabytes or more memory
installed, I'd think that a 36k increase in shared memory usage is
small enough to make the change worth the risk.
Now, your concerns are probably more justified if you're worried about
the change causing some little-used code to suddenly start seeing a
lot of usage...
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 12:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, what additional things need to be done for 7.3.1? As far as I know, > we have done everything. > Do we want to coordinate with Lamar or Oliver about having packages ready to coincide with the release announcement? Robert Treat
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
> >
> > It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
> > such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
> > have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
> > making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
> > there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
>
> I don't quite understand why there's reluctance to change this,
> though. What will it break?
>
> It's probably sufficient to put something in the release notes
> indicating that MAX_FSM_RELATIONS has increased and that you should
> manually set it back to 100 in the config file if the change causes
> problems.
>
> With even relatively old systems having 128 megabytes or more memory
> installed, I'd think that a 36k increase in shared memory usage is
> small enough to make the change worth the risk.
>
>
> Now, your concerns are probably more justified if you're worried about
> the change causing some little-used code to suddenly start seeing a
> lot of usage...
I think we have agreed on putting it on 7.3.X. The issue is that 7.3.1
is already packaged, so it will have to wait for 7.3.2.
-- 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
Bruce Momjian writes: > Note: If you are upgrading an existing system and are going to > install the new files over the old ones, then you should have > backed up your data and shut down the old server by now, as > explained in the Section called If You Are Upgrading above. > > In fact, we are a unclear about exactly when you need a dump/reload and > when you don't. Seems the INSTALL file should have a clearer setup for > folks upgrading from 7.3 to 7.3.1. There's a hidden "...backed up your data, if required, ..." in there that only the author can see. ;-) But I think the section called If You Are Upgrading makes it rather clear when a backup is required. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 18:40, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 12:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, what additional things need to be done for 7.3.1? As far as I know, > > we have done everything. > > > > Do we want to coordinate with Lamar or Oliver about having packages > ready to coincide with the release announcement? All is ready for when the new tar.gz appears. Once I have downloaded it, it should only take 10 minutes or so to package. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name JESUS; forhe shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21