Re: Server instrumentation patch
От | Andreas Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Server instrumentation patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42BC0FB7.50708@pse-consulting.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Server instrumentation patch (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Dave Page wrote: > > >>The reason it happen that way was because we already had the code as a >>contrib-style module for pgAdmin. It was posted because we recognised >>that it was becoming a PITA for pgAdmin users to compile a new >>server-side component and the functions seemed like they would be useful >>to other tools similar to pgAdmin. >> >>Yes, this is not the normal way to proprose new features, but I'm sure >>you appreciate that as picture speaks a thousand words, posting the >>*existing* code with minor changes to properly integrate it shows >>exactly what is being proposed, both in functional and impelmentation >>detail. >> >> > >Sure. > > > >>>Now, in 8.1, the same thing has happened. Two weeks before feature >>>freeze, with no discussion, the patch appears, and makes no >>>reference to >>>concerns raised during the 8.0 discussion. >>> >>> >>OK, first it was the 10th of June which is a little more than two weeks, >>however, Andreas clearly did reference previous discussions on the >>subject - see his message >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00226.php in >>which he points out that 2 functions are from the logger suprocess patch >>from 07/2004, that the file related stuff is based on discussions >>starting at >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-07/msg00287.php, >>including comments from yourself!! >> >> >> >>>pg_terminate_backend is even >>>in the patch, and there is no mention or attempt to address >>>concerns we >>>had in 8.0. >>> >>> >>No. I cannot argue with that, and for that reason I suggested that >>Andreas repost the patch without that function so it can be properly >>discussed and implemented in a safe way in the future. I'm sure you have >>see the reposted patch. >> >> > >OK. > > > >>>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? >>> >>> >>Well as far as I can see, Andreas did respond to all queries about it, >>and then posted his updated patch after it became apparent noone else >>was going to discuss the issue further - >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00309.php. From >>what I can see, no-one has argued or disagreed with his opinion given a >>few days to do so, therefore there was nothing further to discuss. >> >> > >Well, I see Marc replying that dbsize should be moved completely from >contrib: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00409.php > >The current version of the patch only moves those functions he wants. >Marc says he wants them all moved, and I agree. > > > >>With the exception of the now removed pg_terminate_backend, I am unaware >>of any issues that are outstanding. If the committers have issues they >>*must* raise them for *any* submitted patch otherwise developers will >>lose faith in the process when their hard work gets ignored. >> >> > >Well, from the May, 2005 discussion URL you posted, I see a clear reply >to the idea of adding the I/O functions to the backend: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-05/msg00874.php > >Now, you can agree or disagree that there are issues with the I/O >functions, but the concern was raised in May, and not addressed at all, >either via email or the patch. > > > >>Now, to try to get this ball rolling again - do the committers or anyone >>else have any outstanding issues with the instrumentation or dbsize >>patches that haven't been answered in public discussion and addressed in >>the patches already? >> >> > >OK, agreed, how can we move forward? The patch has three parts: > > o file I/O > o move dbsize from contrib > o backend terminate > >For the first, we need to re-discuss this on hackers. I found this as >the conclusion from July of 2004 as it relates to the I/O functions: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-07/msg00561.php > >However, the TODO items still exist so we can discuss it and hopefully >resolve it by feature freeze. > >For the second, please supply a patch that moves _all_ of dbsize into >the main server. I think we have agreement on that. > > I don't think so. As I mentioned, those views are broken. Do you want them to be in core anyway? Regards, Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Mike RylanderДата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] Function's LEAST, GREATEST and DECODE (Oracle vararg polymorphic functions)