Re: Server instrumentation patch

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