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.
> Saying
> pgadmin needs it just isn't enough to get a patch in.
Never said that. It's needed by dbadmins without console access.
> There are the
> issues of security and maintainability that have to be addressed,
All issues were discussed and solved.
> 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.
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.
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.
>
> 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.
Regards,
Andreas