Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 19:47, Luz Violeta  wrote:
> And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.

As I understand it the main motivation for not wanting to accept the
Contributor Covenant is that experience has shown that it forces the
project team to behave as judge and jury on a contributor's personal
life. If you cannot accept that that is a reasonable standpoint, then
I guess we have nowhere to go. If you can, then please make your
suggestions as to how it can be improved within that limit; however
saying "why don't you just accept the CC" will not get anywhere.

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ...

Welcome to the list, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I
hope it brings you the joy you seek.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:53:28PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> > While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
> with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.
> 
> All you have to do is to check it out. 
> 
> As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
> Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
> competition.  

Indeed. And PostgreSQL's been brilliant with that so
far even without a CoC.

A wholehearted Thank You! to all having worked/working on PostgreSQL !

Karsten Hilbert
on behalf of the GNUmed EMR project
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote:

Hi David !
I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because
what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I
liked technically and used for a long time.

It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were
people that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I
mean everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT
industry), and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to
notice or understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally
limited in how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the
foundation on which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down,
down, and down in content and quality, not taking stances for nothing
and falling into generalizations.

I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and
put hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations.
And, about some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC
discussion, I will just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful,
etc ... sometimes, you just get tired or you just cant have your armor
all day on, all week on, all month on, all year on ... all life on, and
sometimes you prefer to avoid these situations, and do something else in
a safer enviroment, so you have a moment when you can take the damn
armor off and simply worrying about having fun.

This is pretty much my personal opinion.

Hugs ~

P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to
the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come
forward and say something, dunno.



I do not see a shitstorm in the making and welcome to the list.


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Alvaro Herrera]

Oliver Elphick wrote:
> (Replying to the digest post)
> 
> Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
> would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been
> conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
> it.

FWIW, I agree that we don't need a CoC.

However, those of us who have never been attacked/abused would naturally
state that there have never been any attacks/abuses, and I believe
that's false -- in other words I believe some people would consider
themselves to have been attacked/abused, even if some external observers
might not necessarily agree that they were being attacked/abused.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

On Jan 22, 2016 23:59, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless  wrote: 
>
> >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 
> > 
> > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else" 
> > to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable? 
> > Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the 
> > Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's 
> > personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql 
> > arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team. 
>
> If this is the latest: 
>
>   http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html 
>
> Then: 
>
> > * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. 
>
> This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that 
> they simply have an opposing point of view, and why can’t you respect that? 
> It’s an out for anyone in violation. 
>
> > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free 
> > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. 
>
> This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being 
> harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into the “geeks are  bad at social” 
> fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh 
> I didn’t know” stories/personas to get away with their abuse. 
>
> > * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants 
> > should always assume good intentions. 
>
> This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have 
> good intentions?” defense. 
>
> > * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a 
> > pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be 
> > tolerated. 
>
> This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be 
> tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled out in the CoC, but it must be spelled 
> out and pointed at from the CoC. 
>
> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t 
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
> themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make 
> vulnerable people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message of 
> the CoC, not the former. 

I agree. However the CoC needs to protect all, while there are some clear lines 
of conduct that everyone should adhere to for eg. Your calling of the group, a 
group of white people would clearly be IMO out of line, while there are some 
shady situations where the meaning from one end could be misunderstood by other 
and it may not fall under the realms of a violation. We need a CoC to protect 
both situations. If you have ideas or suggestions that can make the CoC better, 
I think it would be good to share that in the other CoC thread.

>
> Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, 
> can best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness and safety -- by being open to 
> learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of 
> intent. 
>
> Best, 
>
> David 
>

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

Geoff,

Are you a woman of color of Black descent?  You seem to have the same exact 
opinions that I do.  How can that be?  

Thanks,
Regina

-Original Message-
From: Geoff Winkless [mailto:pgsqlad...@geoff.dj] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Postgres General 
Cc: David E. Wheeler 
Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because 
you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it worth your while 
answering my questions when I send it to you off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was  open for all  does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>>> discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
>> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.
>
> It excludes people who don t participate in the list because of issues they 
> ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring 
> those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in 
> similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience 
> over time.

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish to make 
it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that have 
abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the discussions you 
would know this, and to deny that you could find anything about it on the 
internet is frankly disingenuous, because typing "contributor covenant issues" 
brings up references to Opalgate on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion of the 
world's population who disagree with its principles. The Postgres developers 
believe that it's not their job to implement social justice, and instead 
decided to implement what they believe to be an acceptable compromise.

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres team to 
commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is actively 
unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff





-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:05:49PM +, Geoff Winkless wrote:

> Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
> social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
> be an acceptable compromise.

In fact, they decided to implement PostgreSQL - and I cannot
thank them enough for that :-)

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
> understand what's out of place

I am fairly sure we can _not_ safely assert these two things:

participants being "white guy in the IT industry"

and

participants "don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
understand what's out of place"

Best regards,
Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] 9.5 new features

[John R Pierce]

(sorry to interrupt the discussion on CoC's and social justice, but...)

one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in 
partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything 
specific ?do BRIN's play into partitioned tables ?


in our case, we partition very large 'event' tables by week with 6 month 
retention





--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.

Not that I've got much to say around here ;-)  but, welcome
to the list ! :-D

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Jerome Wagner]

Hello,

I do not intervene much on the list and am not an english native speaker,
but here are some thoughts :

It seems to me that it is very hard to find good words (which should find
their way in other languages) to summarize what is a decent conduct in an
open source project.

Don't we all (or at least peaceful people) want to have a decent conduct,
respectful of others, be it in open source projets, in conferences, or in
life in general ?

Are we not going to end up with some sort of "human rights declaration" ?
which by the way is already translated in many languages here -
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/SearchByLang.aspx

I am not saying that the declaration of human rights is perfect (I should
re-read it) but are we going to write something better on this thread ?
Shouldn't we better use all that energy to modify the declaration of human
rights if there is an obvious problem with it ?

What is the goal of this ? reject people who have sub-par conduct ? have
some kind of legal way to ban them from the project ? Is this like a
"constitution" for the project ?

Anyone can participate in an open source project. Communication and human
interactions, even hidden behind a computer screen, are key to this.

We should maybe try and fix things without needing to write complicated
things to say that one's person freedom ends where another's begin.

I understand that some people sometimes feel rejected or blamed or hurt by
writings or acts that are innapropriate to them or innapropriate in general.

If they can speak out, a healthy community will help them sort and maybe
fix the problem.
If they cannot speak out, then maybe there needs to be someone in the
community who has this "I am all ears and happy to try and protect
everyone's freedom" attitude so that this person can try and sort things
out anonymously.

I am maybe too naïve and put too much trust in the good sides of human
nature, but I hope this helps in some way.

Jérôme






On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Luz Violeta 
wrote:

> Hi David !
> I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion,
> and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because what
> happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I liked
> technically and used for a long time.
>
> It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people
> that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean
> everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry),
> and by consequence they don't have sensibility/empathy to notice or
> understand what's out of place ... or these people are totally limited in
> how much of that sensibility/empathy can get. And that's the foundation on
> which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in
> content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into
> generalizations.
>
> I truly hope that open source communities can move forward on the social
> aspect (the community), so more people can feel ok/safe to come by and put
> hands to the work without feeling exposed to violent situations. And, about
> some comments/signatures I saw floating around the CoC discussion, I will
> just say that this is not being about weak, pitiful, etc ... sometimes, you
> just get tired or you just cant have your armor all day on, all week on,
> all month on, all year on ... all life on, and sometimes you prefer to
> avoid these situations, and do something else in a safer enviroment, so you
> have a moment when you can take the damn armor off and simply worrying
> about having fun.
>
> This is pretty much my personal opinion.
>
> Hugs ~
>
> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and
> say something, dunno.
>
> On 01/22/2016 04:00 AM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:
>
>> On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>>>
>>> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
>>> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
>>> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I
>>> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the
>>> target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the
>>> level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of
>>> personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not
>>> speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A
>>> bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be,
>>> and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
>>>
>>> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the
>>> people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered
>>> what sorts of things should be covered, what topics 

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Oliver Elphick]

(Replying to the digest post)

Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project
would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been
conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix
it.

-- 
Oliver Elphick
Lincolnshire, England



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] long transfer time for binary data

[Johannes]

Am 21.01.2016 um 08:44 schrieb George Neuner:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:29:07 +0100, Johannes  wrote:
> 
>> I noticed transferring a large object or bytea data between client and
>> server takes a long time.
>> For example: An image with a real size of 11 MB could be read on server
>> side (explain analyze) in 81ms. Fine.
>>
>> But on client side the result was completed after 6.7 seconds without
>> ssl compression and 4.5 seconds with ssl compression (both via 100MBit
>> ethernet).
> 
> I think at ~4 seconds you're actually running pretty close to the
> limit of what is possible.
> 
> Remember that, even assuming the execution plan is accurate and also
> is representative of an average request, your 81ms image fetch may be
> arbitrarily delayed due to server load.
> 
> Even a quiet network has overhead: layers of packet headers, TCP
> checksums (CRC) and ack packets, etc. ... it's quite hard to sustain
> more than 95% of the theoretical bandwidth even on a full duplex
> private subnet.  So figure 11MB of data will take ~1.2 seconds under
> _optimal_ conditions.  Any competing traffic will just slow it down.
> 
> Also note that if the image data was stored already compressed,
> additionally trying to use connection level compression may expand the
> data and increase the transmission time, as well as adding processing
> overhead at both ends.
> 
> And then the client has to convert the image from the storage format
> into a display compatible bitmap and get it onto the screen.
> 
> 
>> Are there any other solutions available to display my images in my
>> client application more quickly? Or are there planned improvements to
>> postgresql (transferring the real binary data)?
> 
> You don't say what is the client platform/software or what format are
> the images.  11MB is (equivalent to) 1500+ pixels square depending on
> pixel/color depth.  That's a relatively large image - even from a
> local file, rendering that would take a couple of seconds.  Add a
> couple more seconds for request turn-around and there is your time
> gone.
> 
> BMP and GIF repectively are the formats that are quickest to render.
> If your stored images are in different format, it might be worth
> converting them to one of these.
> 
> GIF and _some_ BMP formats support direct compression of the pixel
> data.  If you find you must store the pixel data uncompressed, you can
> always gzip the resulting image file and store that.
> 
> Then don't use connection level compression.  With images stored
> already compressed the transmitted size is minimized, and you will
> only ever decompress (on the client) data in the critical path to the
> display.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> George


Thanks for explanation. Im writing a client software in java/jdbc. Most
images are in jpeg format. Some have high quality, most medium.

Rendering this 11MB Image in eog (Eye Of Gome) takes 0.5 sec, in GIMP it
is very fast. In Java the object createion takes nearly all time, the
drawing is done very quickly.

The size of the binary string representation of this image is 22MB. I
guess there are not other special transfer mechanism for binary data
than plain text via sql, or?

Best regards
Johannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 10:05 AM, ivo silvestre wrote:

Hi,

I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've
PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read
access.

I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL from a table
in MS SQL in another server. The table in the MS SQL is constantly
growing and I need on-the-fly access to the data.

After some web search I found GeoffMontee's Github, but I don't know how
to install it on Windows...

Is there anyone how already did something like this and could help me out..?


Seems like it is an open issue:

https://github.com/GeoffMontee/tds_fdw/issues/53



Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,

--
Ivo Silvestre
__
*técnico sig | gis technician*


__



--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Magnus Hagander]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

>
>
> They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.
>
>

Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
the CoC suggested by others.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 19:37, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>
>> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
>> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the 
>> CoC suggested by others.
>
> It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of 
> line), but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just my 
> opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing 
> view”.

You are welcome to hold that view, but you are not welcome to express
it in a personal derogatory way. At no point does the CoC say "you can
come here and _express_ your opinions in an unfettered manner".

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rajeev Bhatta]

On Jan 22, 2016 23:00, "David E. Wheeler"  wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote: 
>
> >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
> >> they’ve had there in the past. 
> > 
> > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
> > either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect 
> > verifiable information. 
>
> So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an 
> insufficient one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to 
> participate. You need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It 
> is not up to them to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have 
> suffered just for some sort of confirmation for you. 

It is unfortunate that someone was hurt and had to stop participating.. However 
the purpose of the CoC is to ensure the same situation does not repeat itself. 
For this I do not think anyone should convince anyone who has left rather build 
an environment so that current and new contributors are comfortable and do not 
find a hostile community .. If the people who left were passionate enough to 
the success of the project then the information on an inclusion of an CoC would 
reach them and they can join back... 

Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may 
not be perfect but time will make it. 

>
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
> immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. 
> People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help 
> fixing the things over which they left? 

Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and enforced 
by our community alone... 
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 

I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows 
your passion for postgres project which is very appreciated and I hope if there 
are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to minimize the 
ill treatment they had to suffer. 
>
> Best, 
>
> David 
>

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler 
> wrote:




They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.



Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant 
*and* the CoC suggested by others.



hahahaha, for that matter so does referring to them as 'two white 
guys'.   In fact, an armchair lawyer could have a hey-day with each and 
every one of Regina's characterizations of the players in the Ruby soap 
opera.   I was going to use the phrase 'somewhat snarky' in that last 
sentence but I'll refrain as it might be taken as a character 
assassination and be in violation of some covenent or another.


I'm firmly in the 'keep this as short, simple, and terse as possible' 
camp, with zero references to any specific sorts of categories of 
differences.   How about "off topic BS will not be tolerated"  ?


oh look, this entire discussion of CoC's is off topic for 
PostgreSQL-general, and its most certainly 'BS' by my reckoning! (tongue 
planted in cheek).








--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:25:58 -0800
Adrian Klaver  wrote:


> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
> either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would 
> expect verifiable information.

Maybe they can't.

Imagine for a second that I'm a homosexual, and that a guy cracked a
crude joke about homosexuals, and three or four people post that it was
a funny joke. Imagine further that I work for one of those troglodyte
employers who would fire me the instant they found out I was a
homosexual, and I come from a family that would disown me if they found
out. I wouldn't speak up. I wouldn't even say "I'm not a homosexual,
but I think your words are hurtful!" Because I would be so afraid of
being found out that I would not give one hint. I'd just leave.

Now imagine I was from one of those countries where homosexuality is
punishable by death. 

Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
revolutionary.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

[ivo silvestre]

Hi,

I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've
PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read
access.

I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL from a table in
MS SQL in another server. The table in the MS SQL is constantly growing and
I need on-the-fly access to the data.

After some web search I found GeoffMontee's Github, but I don't know how to
install it on Windows...

Is there anyone how already did something like this and could help me out..?

Thanks in advance!

Kind regards,

-- 
Ivo Silvestre
__
*técnico sig | gis technician*


__

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Rajeev Bhatta  wrote:

> Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may 
> not be perfect but time will make it. 

It is better than none, I’ll grant you, but it could be SOOO much better right 
now.

> Ideas can be solicited from other groups but CoC should be created and 
> enforced by our community alone… 

It’s fair to draw on the experience and expertise of others who have gone 
before us, yes.

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. 
> 
> I am sorry to hear that... The fact that you are raising your opinion shows 
> your passion for postgres project which is very appreciated and I hope if 
> there are others they should be back and see that there is an effort to 
> minimize the ill treatment they had to suffer. 

Oh, no doubt, but the fact that they’re not participating (or barely) shows 
that the current proposal is insufficient.

Best,

David

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:
>
>>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>>> discussion.
>>
>> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
>> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.
>
> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
> they’ve had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either 
> bring those people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people 
> in similar positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience 
> over time.

As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
be an acceptable compromise.

Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the
group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it
worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you
off-list.

On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler  wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject 
to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those 
people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar 
positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.


As a group the postgres team have decided the level to which they wish
to make it clear that they welcome everyone.

What they will not agree to do is leave members open to the SJWs that
have abused the existing Covenant. If you were to bother to read the
discussions you would know this, and to deny that you could find
anything about it on the internet is frankly disingenuous, because
typing "contributor covenant issues" brings up references to Opalgate
on the second page.

The Covenant deliberately and explicitly bars a significant proportion
of the world's population who disagree with its principles. The
Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement
social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to
be an acceptable compromise.


+1. I am personally offended by the Covenant as it assumes projects are 
guilty and need to prove innocence which goes against the principles I 
was raised on. Of course the previous sentence could be construed as 
offensive as it reflects a Anglo-American view.




Anyone who considers that they are entitled to require the postgres
team to commit to behave in a way with which they are uncomfortable is
actively unwelcome. Why is that unreasonable?

Geoff





--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Magnus Hagander]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David E. Wheeler 
wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>
> > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and*
> the CoC suggested by others.
>
> It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of
> line), but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just
> my opinion, and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an
> “opposing view”.
>

Are you really saying this does not violate "* Participants must ensure
that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks."?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless  wrote:

>> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.
> 
> Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
> to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
> Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
> Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
> personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
> arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

If this is the latest:

  http://postgresql.nabble.com/CoC-Final-td5882762.html

Then:

> * We are tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views. 

This point allows anyone who has been reported for a violation to say that they 
simply have an opposing point of view, and why can’t you respect that? It’s an 
out for anyone in violation.

> * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free 
> of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. 

This allows a violator to claim ignorance. The “I didn’t know I was being 
harassing!” ‘defense’ works.  It plays into the “geeks are  bad at social” 
fallacy, and completely ignores that a lot of abusers intentionally craft “oh I 
didn’t know” stories/personas to get away with their abuse.

> * When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants 
> should always assume good intentions. 

This allows the “I didn’t realize my tone was off, can’t you assume I have good 
intentions?” defense.

> * Participants who disrupt the collaborative space, or participate in a 
> pattern of behaviour which could be considered harassment will not be 
> tolerated. 

This should point to a policy for handling violations. What does “will not be 
tolerated” mean? It needn’t be spelled out in the CoC, but it must be spelled 
out and pointed at from the CoC.

This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don’t 
want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make vulnerable 
people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message of the CoC, not 
the former.

Those of us who fear offending without meaning to, or being misunderstood, can 
best serve the aims of a CoC -- openness and safety -- by being open to 
learning from our mistakes rather than trying to defend them on the basis of 
intent.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Regina Obe  wrote:

> Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

No worries. :-)

> Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my 
> knowledge.  Here is the thread:

Threat?

> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004
> 
> Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So 
> I shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should 
> pay close attention to:
> 
> Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to 
> her cause, as it's way more important than the poor folk who work to make 
> PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime

$300 a month to work on promoting diversity in open-source projects? It’s worth 
*so* much more than that.

> Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  
> https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200  
> https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
> Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender 
> reassignment is wrong for young children, and spending like $50,000 on gender 
> reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are 
> killing themselves and spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could 
> be better used.

I don’t follow.

> Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a 
> trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off the Contributor Convenant so it's 
> in a shape they can accept)

Looks like it went in.

  https://github.com/opal/opal/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

> Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
> And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who 
> is not even a white guy) inventor of ruby must be a jerk for not adopting 
> this wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful 
> person would not.  How about me?

It depends on his reasons, I suppose. 

> Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA=youtu.be=538  What has 
> she done for open source?
> Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with 
> white guy opinions.

They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote:

Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I 
shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay 
close attention to:


ohgood(diety-of-choice). This could be made into a soap opera and 
run on prime time television.




--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander  wrote:

> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely 
> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the 
> CoC suggested by others.

It may well violate the Contributor Covenant (my apologies, I was out of line), 
but not the current draft of the CoC, IME. Why? Because that’s just my opinion, 
and the CoC draft formally recognizes my right to have an “opposing view”.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc. 

Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when 
writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body 
language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each 
other's background, experience and capacities.  

Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
whatever species we care to look at. 

Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i. 

As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need direction 
so we can keep the best of traditions for 
whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change 
with time.  





-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 09:56
To: David E. Wheeler
Cc: pgsql-general
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant; however I 
would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white straight male, it 
doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when I have suffered from 
prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my parents didn't have enough money, 
I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift 
for mean kids (UK readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been aspects 
of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not where I am now) 
and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues that have been created for 
racial and sexual discrimination; it's probably one of the reasons that geeks 
find ourselves in these tech-based online communities so often - there's so 
little chance of being bullied by the cool kids.

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why there's 
quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts loudly and 
motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way (and therefore why the 
covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work that you 
guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and I haven't 
bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it Right instead?" is 
pretty insulting, don't you think?

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Variable not found

[Gilles Darold]

Hi,

>
> On 01/20/2016 07:35 PM, Sachin Srivastava wrote:
>
> Dear Folks,
>
> I have a question about global variables in Oracle pl/sql package.
> Where
> are these variables when package is converted to schema from Oracle to
> Postgres through Ora2PG Tool?
>

Ora2Pg doesn't export global variable and any other element declared
outside a package body. If you want to know how thoses variables was
created under Oracle you can simply ask to Ora2Pg to export the source
code of the packages. You will get the entire package declaration. To
proceed set the PLSQL_PGSQL configuration directive to 0 and perform a
PACKAGE export into a different directory:

ora2pg -c config/ora2pg.conf -t PACKAGE -b path/to/sources/ -o
pkgsrc.sql

or if the directive is already disabled remove do not use the -p option.

>
> For example, package  g_compliance_id. This package is converted to schema
> ssj4_compliance_pkg, but I cannot find where is the variable
> g_compliance_id. It must be somewhere because there is no error in
> functions which reference this variable. Please suggest where I will
> fount it, any idea?
>
>
> Best guess it is stored in a table in the schema.

As Adrian says, there's no equivalent with PostgreSQL. You will need to
use custom variable in postgresql.conf or a table to store your global
information.

Best regards,

-- 
Gilles Darold
Consultant PostgreSQL
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid.

Others have addressed the reasons for not going with the Covenant;
however I would like to make the point that, just because I'm a white
straight male, it doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions when
I have suffered from prejudice: I didn't talk the right way, my
parents didn't have enough money, I'm too geeky, I wore the wrong
clothes, I have a name that was a double-gift for mean kids (UK
readers will remember Rainbow, I expect) etc etc etc.

Admittedly most of that has faded since childhood but there have been
aspects of it even in places I have worked as an adult (thankfully not
where I am now) and we don't even have recourse to the legal avenues
that have been created for racial and sexual discrimination; it's
probably one of the reasons that geeks find ourselves in these
tech-based online communities so often - there's so little chance of
being bullied by the cool kids.

I also have a feeling that that might have something to do with why
there's quite such a pushback against the type of person who shouts
loudly and motivates others to form a mob to get his or her own way
(and therefore why the covenant is unlikely to gain traction here).

Finally, to open a new thread and effectively say "you know the work
that you guys have put in over the last month, I'm sure it's fine, and
I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but why don't you do it
Right instead?" is pretty insulting, don't you think?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Auotmated postgres failover

[Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais]

Le Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:34:18 -0800,
John R Pierce  a écrit :

> On 1/21/2016 11:07 AM, jwienc...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm looking for a tool to automate PostgreSQL cluster management 
> > failover in the event the master database were to become unavailable. 
> >   Currently are manually issuing a "pg_ctl promote"  once we become 
> > aware that the master database has crashed.
> >
> >
> > Is repmgr a via solution?  Please pass along experiences with repmgr.
> >
> > Are there any other  tools available to automatically issue the 
> > "promote" in the event of a master database crash?

Yes, 3 different Pacemaker resource agents exist for PostgreSQL:

 * official one, in the package "resource-agents" on most linux distribs.
   This one is pretty complex and support multistate and stateless setup.
 * a simple, stupid, easy and stateless, agent:
   https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/tree/master/stateless
   This one is fine for a 2 node cluster
 * a multistate-aware agent:
   https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/tree/master/multistate
   This one is nice for multi-node cluster, searching for the best known slave
   to elect after a master lost.

Some important docs are available in the pgsql-resource-agent (PRA) repo:
 * https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/blob/master/FENCING.md
 * the stateless:
   
https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/blob/master/stateless/README.md
 * the multistate:
   
https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/blob/master/multistate/README.md
   
https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/blob/master/multistate/INSTALL.md
   
https://github.com/dalibo/pgsql-resource-agent/blob/master/multistate/docs/Quick_Start.md

> repmgr is a tool you could use in conjunction with a generic cluster 
> management system like linuxha/heartbeat, vcs, etc.
> 
> the most difficult part is reliably determining that A) the master has 
> crashed, and B) fencing the failed old master so it doesn't wake up and 
> think its still in charge.

+1 
-- 
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Dalibo


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta  wrote:

> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the 
> mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and 
> say something, dunno.

Thank you so much for doing so. Up to now it’s just been one more white guy 
(me) saying something. The more folks who can constructively contribute -- and 
especially to shine a light on the contexts of which many of us are unaware -- 
the better the likelihood of getting something that creates the safe 
environment I firmly believe we all want.

Best,

David

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:

> Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the
> revolutionary.

+1000

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 2:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:



On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some 
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best 
regards, A 
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the 
regulars to drink at a bar without wifi 


hmmm, not happy hour on the left coast for a couple more hours :-/

(apologies to any recovering alcoholics out there, this was not meant as 
a taunt or anything)


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:32:10PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should 
> strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and 
> why it is working for them.

This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some
while ago.  There is definitely more than one way to do this.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@crankycanuck.ca


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Kevin Grittner]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta  wrote:
>
>> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first
>> mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope
>> made me come forward and say something, dunno.

Welcome!

I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.

> the better the likelihood of getting something that creates the
> safe environment I firmly believe we all want.

Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.  They just better not
repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
there could be miscommunication.[2]

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[2] 
http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2016/01/21/brown-gay-sign-causes-amusing-misunderstanding/79116720/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Greg Sabino Mullane]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160


David E. Wheeler wrote:

(...good rebuttals to specific points of the proposed Code of Conduct..

> This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don�t 
> want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators protect 
> themselves in the event of a reported violation, but little to make 
> vulnerable people feel safe. It is the latter that needs to be the message 
> of the CoC, not the former.

Thanks, David, I confess I hadn't seen it in that light before, but you 
make some good points. I think this may indeed be one of those times 
that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should 
strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and 
why it is working for them.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201601221729
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iEYEAREDAAYFAlaircQACgkQvJuQZxSWSshcsgCeMsyRvP24YbFD/OTuvQ20/PEf
PHIAn2Gu3ectm6o/L2npNMy+cFBhvD2b
=p/1f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Rob Sargent]

On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some 
while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best 
regards, A 
Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the 
regulars to drink at a bar without wifi




--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

David et. Al,
Sorry for top-posting but it's late, and I'm using lame outlook.
I haven't said anything recently, because I decided to open a bag of popcorn 
and enjoy the Coc debate.

If you read my earlier posts, you should know that I am vehemently against 
anything that sounds like  http://contributor-covenant.org.  True I don't speak 
for all mixed race women or women or minorities or left-handers or windows 
users, or whatever special interest group you think I belong to.  I speak for 
myself.

I am especially disgusted by the people behind http://contributor-covenant.org. 
 They have done nothing but to silence the voices of minorities. That's being 
kind to them.

A Coc if we have one, which I personally don't think we should, should assume 
all people are here because they find PostgreSQL useful and want to encourage  
its use and extend its functionality.

So like I have said before as an example PostGIS doesn't have a Coc listed on 
our website, but we do have this:
http://postgis.net/development/  "Getting Involved" section, which Paul Ramsey 
put together a while back, and made me feel pretty welcome.

Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this thing, 
get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be heard."
That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Thanks,
Regina

-Original Message-
From: Rajeev Bhatta [mailto:techie.raj...@yahoo.in] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:00 AM
To: David E. Wheeler ; pgsql-general 

Subject: Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this 
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it s likely to 
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I 
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the target 
> of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the level of 
> many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of personally, in this 
> community and others, who have. If those people are not speaking up here, I 
> suspect it s because they don t expect to be heard. A bunch of white guys who 
> run the project have decided what it s gonna be, and mostly cut things out 
> since these threads started.
>
> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the people 
> who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered what sorts 
> of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed, and how to 
> word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe, and to 
> appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that people 
> continue to feel safe.
>
> So I d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I 
> propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already put 
> into this, and simply:
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono, 
> Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant, 
> unmodified.
>
>http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as 
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should 
> also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places 
> (such as the mail lists pages).
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a 
> separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting 
> address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links 
> to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
Hi David, whatever be the race of the select few who built the CoC, the 
categorization of them as white is inappropriate.. The CoC is meant to be 
allowing free communication across all members of the community irrespective of 
their color, race, sexuality, gender, nationality or for that matter whatever 
their personal viewpoint is.

Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open for 
all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by 
anything is inappropriate.

Thanks

Regards
Rajeev





-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] BDR with postgres 9.5

[Craig Ringer]

On 22 January 2016 at 04:24, Merlin Moncure  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Vik Fearing  wrote:
> > On 01/20/2016 11:41 AM, Nikhil wrote:
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the timeline for BDR with postgres 9.5 released version.
> >
> > Currently there are no plans for BDR with 9.5.
> > https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/bdr/issues/157#issuecomment-172402366
>
> 9.6 looks like a possibility though.  I have big plans for BDR
> personally, but for various reasons need to lay it on top of a stock
> postgres.


Yeah. 9.6 is the goal right now, with it built around pglogical and
(hopefully) stock 9.6 to make it more maintainable and modular.

If you want BDR on 9.6, help with getting sequence access methods
committed, the logical decoding for sequences patch, and/or failover slots
would be valuable since they are all going to be important for BDR on 9.6.
If you want to use it please help make it happen.

-- 
 Craig Ringer   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote:


Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.


+1



--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] adding a bdr node using bcv backup

[Craig Ringer]

On 21 January 2016 at 20:46, (Daniel Stolf)  wrote:


> So here's what I don't get:
>
> 1) if I have to create a new replication slots on node1 and 2 beforehand
> using "pg_create_physical_replication_slot" , don't they need the if of
> node3 on their name?
>

You need to create a logical replication slot with the 'bdr' plugin, since
that's what BDR uses.


> 2) If node3 has the same name and if as node1, won't that introduce a
> conflic? Don't I need to clean that up before node3 can join the
> replication group?
>

It will not have the same sysid.  bdr_init_copy resets it normally. If
you're doing it manually you'd have to run pg_resetxlog with the option to
reset the sysid, create the new slots with the new sysid, then make sure
bdr_init_copy doesn't reset the sysid again it afterwards when it brings
the new node up.

Honestly I don't remember the exact steps that had to be performed before
bdr_init_copy got support for automating the pg_basebackup step. That's the
supported way to do it. I'm trying to prepare some conference presentations
and a new pglogical release so I can't presently dig into it further for
you; you may need to take a look at the bdr_init_copy sources and/or study
how the node bringup works in more detail.

I can see it being useful to add a new mode to bdr_init_copy where you tell
it to generate a sysid and make new slots for that sysid; *then* you make a
snapshot and restore it, then you run bdr_init_copy again to finish
bringup, resetting the sysid to the new value and finishing setup. There's
nothing like that now though.

-- 
 Craig Ringer   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't
believe that we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware
of the reasons why other people think we should, I don't need
educating, I just believe that its overall impact will be negative or
(at best) neutral.

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently 
> when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through 
> body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know 
> each other's background, experience and capacities.

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use
our normal prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
> freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
> whatever species we care to look at.

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed
to say whatever they want with no regard for others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
> this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
> current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
> Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find
is that Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has
nothing at all to do with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the
only person who seems to be bringing up religion (rather repeatedly)
is yourself.

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need 
> direction so we can keep the best of traditions for
> whoever may come on board but at the same time have the flexibility to change 
> with time.

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how
a CoC will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is
defined by the people who spend their time writing it. If,  in ten
years' time, some different people come along with a different vision
and set of traditions, then that's up to them, surely?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Building PostgreSQL 9.6devel sources with Microsoft Visual C++ 2015?

[Yury Zhuravlev]

Please look at the new patch. It is filled with black magic, but it looks 
still more true.

He agreed with the internal API.

--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/port/chklocale.c b/src/port/chklocale.c
index a551fdc..6113424 100644
--- a/src/port/chklocale.c
+++ b/src/port/chklocale.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ win32_langinfo(const char *ctype)
 {
 	char	   *r = NULL;
 
-#if (_MSC_VER >= 1700)
+#if (_MSC_VER >= 1700 && _MSC_VER < 1800)
 	_locale_t	loct = NULL;
 
 	loct = _create_locale(LC_CTYPE, ctype);
@@ -214,7 +214,20 @@ win32_langinfo(const char *ctype)
 			sprintf(r, "CP%u", loct->locinfo->lc_codepage);
 		_free_locale(loct);
 	}
+#elif (_MSC_VER >= 1800)
+	_locale_t	loct = NULL;
+
+	loct = _create_locale(LC_CTYPE, ctype);
+	if (loct != NULL)
+	{
+		__crt_locale_data_public* public_loct = __acrt_get_locale_data_prefix(loct);
+		r = malloc(16);			/* excess */
+		if (r != NULL)
+			sprintf(r, "CP%u", public_loct->_locale_lc_codepage);
+		_free_locale(loct);
+	}
 #else
+
 	char	   *codepage;
 
 	/*

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

>Farjad wrote
>A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

>>Geoff wrote
>>I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that 
>>we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled
>>to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons 
>>why other people think we should, 
>>I don't need educating, 

Perhaps you haven't read all the threads. You are not the only person who has 
question the need for Coc. 

Everyone knows people react differently when they are consulting face to face 
than on email. There is a need for etiquette but not necessarily a restrictive 
one. 

>>Geoff wrote
>> I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is 
>> defined by the people who spend their time writing it. 

But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their businesses 
no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long. 
So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable. Even though the 
postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and naturally have a 
greater say.  

Personally speaking i like to learn all the time. If it is constructive and 
useful I don't mind where it comes from.

We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is trying 
to educate you. The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective 
and what is wrong with learning something new? 



-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff 
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 11:21
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
 wrote:
> A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc.

I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that 
we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled to their 
opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm aware of the reasons why other 
people think we should, I don't need educating, I just believe that its overall 
impact will be negative or (at best) neutral.

> Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently 
> when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through 
> body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know 
> each other's background, experience and capacities.

So what you're saying is, email is a bad thing because we can't use our normal 
prejudices in advance?

> Freedom is not about saying anything we like anyway we like. For all our 
> freedom is automatically limited by other people's freedom. That's life 
> whatever species we care to look at.

I haven't seen anyone making the argument that they should be allowed to say 
whatever they want with no regard for others.

> Simply look at the abuse some people are getting on Twitter/facebook. Even on 
> this thread someone ,I have no doubt unintentionally and only because of 
> current climate, automatically used religious connotations in replying to me. 
> Even though I am not a Muslim, I am a Baha'i.

They did? Apologies if I missed it but the only reference I can find is that 
Jim said that he is religious about postgres, which has nothing at all to do 
with your (or indeed his) religion. Indeed the only person who seems to be 
bringing up religion (rather repeatedly) is yourself.

> As postgresql grows even more which I sincerely hope it does. We need 
> direction so we can keep the best of traditions for whoever may come on board 
> but at the same time have the flexibility to change with time.

You've given no clear evidence as to a) whether that's true or b) how a CoC 
will actually help to achieve that.

I believe that it's right and proper that the direction of Postgres is defined 
by the people who spend their time writing it. If,  in ten years' time, some 
different people come along with a different vision and set of traditions, then 
that's up to them, surely?

Geoff



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their 
> businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and 
> naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's
comments are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can
say "no, thanks, we don't want to do that. There are several other
products that might help you, feel free to use those."

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either
move to a different database, or become developers either within
postgres or in a fork. That is how Open Source works.

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is 
> trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to
your implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply
uneducated. I think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion
that has gone on, that the people who still don't think it's necessary
are likely to have reached an educated conclusion to that effect.

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is 
> wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault
for taking it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

>Geoff wrote
>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
input.  Just yours. 

WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc. 



-Original Message-
From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff 
Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 12:48
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
 wrote:
>
> But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their 
> businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long.

Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.

> So everyone's problem and comment is relevant and valuable.
> Even though the postgresql developers obviously see a broader picture and 
> naturally have a greater say.

Well no. The Postgresql developers can decide whether everyone else's comments 
are relevant to them and, if they decide otherwise, they can say "no, thanks, 
we don't want to do that. There are several other products that might help you, 
feel free to use those."

Eventually, the people who are asking for those things will either move to a 
different database, or become developers either within postgres or in a fork. 
That is how Open Source works.

> We all need to approach each other in a humble learning mode. No one is 
> trying to educate you.

I'm not objecting to people trying to educate me, I'm objecting to your 
implication that those people who do not want a CoC are simply uneducated. I 
think it's fairly clear, given the amount of discussion that has gone on, that 
the people who still don't think it's necessary are likely to have reached an 
educated conclusion to that effect.

> The fact you are taking it that way is only your perspective and what is 
> wrong with learning something new?

Oh, I see! It's not you who is causing me upset, but rather my fault for taking 
it that way?

You really don't see the irony in that, given the context of the discussion?

Geoff



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner  wrote:

> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
> present.

Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms 
are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.

> Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
> seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
> remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
> anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
> you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
> you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free 
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.

> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
> to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
> make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.

> In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
> of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
> statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
> should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
> the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.

What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member 
of the community, but in a non-community context? Should there be no 
repercussions?

> They just better not
> repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
> keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
> have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
> to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
> the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our 
community, because their abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even 
if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being 
done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC 
while the victim is not.

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. 
IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur outside 
the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an explicit 
policy for doing so.

> The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
> elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
> a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
> there could be miscommunication.[2]

Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless 
the targets of such abuse feel safe reporting them.

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel 
safe. This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

  https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Bret Stern]

Frankly,

Can we create another COC (Code of Content) for this specific list?

My mailbox is full of non-technical (in my opinion) CoC discussions.
Which I grow tired of.

And to add to this completely impossible COC solution; in my life I've
constantly BEEN offended.
I've been offended financially, technically, physically, grammatically
(as written), and my favorite ..golfically (can't putt).

I believe I'm a better everything by those who have offended me in the
name of life's lessons. I
don' t go to Starbucks and expect a COC 

eg;
You shouldn''t have used an int...and...
why the f%$ckl did you use a godda$%m int you dumb son-of-a-bitchare
the same thing to me,
but the latter clearly could have cost lives.

So for those of us who cannot be offended (no offense). no COC needed.


Cheers (no offense)
Bret Stern (no offense)


ps. If you do pull off the Holy Grail (no offense), I'll be sure to
adhere to it.

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner  wrote:


I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
present.


Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms 
are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.


Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it.  I have still not
seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists.  Can
you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?


My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.


Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.


Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.


The above is exactly where I figured this was going to go, loaded 
buzzwords, in this case privilege. The fact that it is a buzzword is not 
of consequence, the fact that it is profiling is. Basically it says we 
can look at the color of someone's skin and along with their sex 
determine where to slot them, without reference to what they actually 
think or their life experiences. Now if you want to claim privilege for 
yourself fine, but making a generic statement of privilege is offensive 
to me.





In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.


What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member 
of the community, but in a non-community context? Should there be no 
repercussions?






They just better not
repeat the idiocy here.  I would hope that major contributors would
keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
have on the public perception of the community.  I've come around
to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.


In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our 
community, because their abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even 
if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being 
done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC 
while the victim is not.

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. 
IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur outside 
the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an explicit 
policy for doing so.


The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
elsewhere should not be brought in.  Problems should be resolved in
a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
there could be miscommunication.[2]


Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless 
the targets of such abuse feel safe reporting them.

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel 
safe. This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

   https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David




--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:

>> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
>> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
>> someone by anything is inappropriate.
> 
> +1

The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Strange/Correct? behavior of SELECT FOR UPDATE

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 01:41 AM, david.tu...@linuxbox.cz wrote:

Hi,

we have some question about behavior SELECT FOR UPDATE. We want find
record with open bounds tstzrange, close it a insert new open. We use
SELECT FOR UPDATE in function, but sometimes 2rows inserted. I show this
on simple example with integer data type. Here is:

--tested on postgresql 9.5.0

CREATE TABLE test(x int);

INSERT INTO test VALUES (1);

-
--transaction1

BEGIN;

SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE;
  x
---
  1
(1 row)

UPDATE test SET x=2 WHERE x=1;
--UPDATE 1

INSERT INTO test VALUES (1);
--INSERT 0 1

SELECT * FROM test ;
  x
---
  2
  1
(2 rows)

--
--transaction2
BEGIN;

SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE; --here transaction hang, thats
what we want...
-
--transaction1

COMMIT;

--transaction2
--now lock released
SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE;
  x
---
(0 row)

-- but we cant see inserted row with value 1, only updated records can
we see


I would take a look at this, in particular the *** sectioned:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/interactive/transaction-iso.html

13.2.1. Read Committed Isolation Level

UPDATE, DELETE, SELECT FOR UPDATE, and SELECT FOR SHARE commands behave 
the same as SELECT in terms of searching for target rows: they will only 
find target rows that were committed as of the command start time. 
However, such a target row might have already been updated (or deleted 
or locked) by another concurrent transaction by the time it is found. In 
this case, the would-be updater will wait for the first updating 
transaction to commit or roll back (if it is still in progress). If the 
first updater rolls back, then its effects are negated and the second 
updater can proceed with updating the originally found row. *** If the 
first updater commits, the second updater will ignore the row if the 
first updater deleted it, otherwise it will attempt to apply its 
operation to the updated version of the row. The search condition of the 
command (the WHERE clause) is re-evaluated to see if the updated version 
of the row still matches the search condition. If so, the second updater 
proceeds with its operation using the updated version of the row. *** In 
the case of SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT FOR SHARE, this means it is the 
updated version of the row that is locked and returned to the client.


As I understand that, it means that the original row that had x=1 no 
longer exists as it now has x=2. The subsequent row that was INSERTed 
occurred inside transaction 1 and was not visible to transaction 2 when 
it started, so when transaction 1 COMMITed the query SELECT * FROM test 
WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE found nothing.





-- so our function here insert new row with value 1, becouse don't know
about about existing row
-- if we tray repeat select now we can see row that was inserted by
transaction1


I would say you are seeing the row just created above.


SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1;
  x
---
  1
(1 row)
-
We try prevent this situation, i know we can use EXCLUDE index on
tstzrange column, but transaction2 rollback or we can use LOCK TABLE
test IN EXCLUSIVE MODE - this working but locks whole table or we need
ask table again with SELECT FOR UPDATE - some double check before insert
...Is there any other way how to close tstzrange with minimum locks?

Its correct behavior or not?

Thanks

David Turoň


--
-
Ing. David TUROŇ
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28. rijna 168, 709 01 Ostrava

tel.:+420 591 166 224
fax:+420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 732 589 152
www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: ser...@linuxbox.cz
-




--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe  wrote:

> I am especially disgusted by the people behind 
> http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to silence the 
> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.

Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about 
controversy or other issues in the first few pages. Maybe I need to dig a 
little deeper?

Honestly, I like that other folks have really thought this stuff through, and 
it’s so widely adopted as to be approaching a standard for OSS.

> Which essentially says - "we are individuals with a common love for this 
> thing, get to know who we are, jump in to help us and your voice will be 
> heard."
> That's pretty much all I care about when getting involved in any  community.

Right, but it’s not enough for other people, so insufficiently inclusive.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake  wrote:


Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open
for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying
someone by anything is inappropriate.


+1


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive. To 
the extent that the whole world was not included, then no. I for one 
think the whole idea is useless because of the above, deciding what 
value between 0 and 7.4 billion should be notified and who in whatever 
value is chosen is more right.




Best,

David




--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:

>> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
>> discussion.
> 
> To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be 
> subject to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.

It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past. Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those 
people back in, or to adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar 
positions have developed through hard thinking and hard experience over time.

Best,

David




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive 
discussion.


To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be subject 
to it had an opportunity to comment, yes it was inclusive.


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past.


When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up 
either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would 
expect verifiable information.




Best way for it to be inclusive is to either bring those people back in, or to 
adopt some sort of standard CoC that people in similar positions have developed 
through hard thinking and hard experience over time.

Best,

David





--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

No one has suggested you are a bad person. 

The world is changing towards smaller more agile companies. For postgresql to 
survive it needs to be at the forefront of the wave. 

It is difficult for everyone to cope with so many changes. You are part of the 
team and a good contributor.

So let's keep it that way. 


-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
 wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to 
"YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
 wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've
descended to "YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Variable not found

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/21/2016 10:48 PM, Sachin Srivastava wrote:

Dear Adrian,

So, how the effective way to search this because I have around 1300 tables.


See Gilles response. From that I gather global variables are not 
automatically transferred and it is up to you to decide where to put 
them. Per your original post saying there where no errors in the 
function, do you mean when the function was created or used?




Regards,
SS

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Adrian Klaver
> wrote:

On 01/20/2016 07:35 PM, Sachin Srivastava wrote:

Dear Folks,

I have a question about global variables in Oracle pl/sql
package. Where
are these variables when package is converted to schema from
Oracle to
Postgres through Ora2PG Tool?


For example, package mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>





--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Re: 回复： [GENERAL] about test_parser installation failure problem(PostgreSQL in 9.5.0)？

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/21/2016 11:55 PM, 閬閬イふ wrote:

Ccing list, not because I have an answer, but to put it front of folks 
that might.

  thank you postgresql!
 create EXTENSION zhparser Solved.beacause the config file is utf8 +
bom，change file encoding  ok
but query in pgAdmin III noresult,pgsql say:
NOTICE:  text-search query contains only stop words or doesn't contain
lexemes, ignored
and pg_log info LOCATION:  clean_fakeval, tsquery_cleanup.c:287
STATEMENT:
  select to_tsquery('chinesecfg','鏈嶅姟缇や紬?);
my execute real command sql is "select to_tsquery('chinesecfg','服务群众');"
why log file is garbled.

-- 原始邮件 --
*发件人:* "Adrian Klaver";;
*发送时间:* 2016年1月20日(星期三) 凌晨0:20
*收件人:* "閬閬イふ";
"pgsql-bugs";
"pgsql-general";
"pgsql-hackers";
*主题:* Re: [GENERAL] about test_parser installation failure
problem(PostgreSQL in 9.5.0)？

On 01/14/2016 06:51 PM, 閬閬イふ wrote:
 > hi postgreSql !
 >  test_parser install is ok (postgresql 9.2.4)
 > but at (postgresql 9.5.0) failure？
 > why？the postgresql say:
 > CREATE EXTENSION zhparser
 > say:
 > ERROR:  syntax error at or near ""
 > LINE 1: CREATE EXTENSION zhparser
 >  ^
 > ** 错误 **
 > ERROR: syntax error at or near ""
 > SQL 状态: 42601
 > 字符:1
 > CREATE EXTENSION test_parser FROM unpackaged
 > ERROR:  function testprs_start(internal, integer) does not exist
 > ** 错误 **
 > ERROR: function testprs_start(internal, integer) does not exist
 > SQL 状态: 42883
 > 9.5.0 Not supported ?
 > can help me?





--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or 
> software industry. 
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software 
> is concerned. 
> 
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble 
> companies. 

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing
directly to do with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

Geoff, 

The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or 
software industry. 
The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software is 
concerned. 

All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble 
companies. 

I believe we need to say things honestly, equally frankly and as politely as 
possibly. Without frank consultation we won't get anywhere. 

I don't think you are bad person. Just that you are resisting change. 

Personally I rather see more contributions as it adds to the momentum of the 
community as a whole. 

Hope this clarifies my position.

-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org 
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless
Sent: 22 January 2016 13:22
To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet)
Cc: Geoff Winkless; Postgres General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) 
 wrote:
>>Geoff wrote
>>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper.
> You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an 
> input.  Just yours.

Now I'm being reasonable and explaining my point, whereas you've descended to 
"YOU WANT POSTGRES TO DIE, YOU BAD PERSON".

My work here is done.

Geoff


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make 
changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[FarjadFarid(ChkNet)]

> While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

All you have to do is to check it out. 

As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs.
Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the
competition.  


-Original Message-
From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Hilbert
Sent: 22 January 2016 15:05
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote:

> The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail
or software industry. 
> The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where
software is concerned. 
> 
> All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more
nibble companies. 

While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do
with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project.

Regards,
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Strange/Correct? behavior of SELECT FOR UPDATE

[david . turon]

Hi,

we have some question about behavior SELECT FOR UPDATE. We want find record
with open bounds tstzrange, close it a insert new open. We use SELECT FOR
UPDATE in function, but sometimes 2rows inserted. I show this on simple
example with integer data type. Here is:

--tested on postgresql 9.5.0

CREATE TABLE test(x int);

INSERT INTO test VALUES (1);

-
--transaction1

BEGIN;

SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE;
 x
---
 1
(1 row)

UPDATE test SET x=2 WHERE x=1;
--UPDATE 1

INSERT INTO test VALUES (1);
--INSERT 0 1

SELECT * FROM test ;
 x
---
 2
 1
(2 rows)

--
--transaction2
BEGIN;

SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE; --here transaction hang, thats
what we want...
-
--transaction1

COMMIT;

--transaction2
--now lock released
SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1 FOR UPDATE;
 x
---
(0 row)

-- but we cant see inserted row with value 1, only updated records can we
see
-- so our function here insert new row with value 1, becouse don't know
about about existing row
-- if we tray repeat select now we can see row that was inserted by
transaction1
SELECT * FROM test WHERE x=1;
 x
---
 1
(1 row)
-
We try prevent this situation, i know we can use EXCLUDE index on tstzrange
column, but transaction2 rollback or we can use LOCK TABLE test IN
EXCLUSIVE MODE - this working but locks whole table or we need ask table
again with SELECT FOR UPDATE - some double check before insert ...Is there
any other way how to close tstzrange with minimum locks?

Its correct behavior or not?

Thanks

David Turoň


--
-
Ing. David TUROŇ
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28. rijna 168, 709 01 Ostrava

tel.:+420 591 166 224
fax:+420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 732 589 152
www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: ser...@linuxbox.cz
-

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[David E. Wheeler]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:

>> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues 
>> they’ve had there in the past.
> 
> When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either 
> directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect 
> verifiable information.

So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient 
one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to participate. You 
need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to them 
to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some 
sort of confirmation for you.

The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. People 
have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing the 
things over which they left?

BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Best,

David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Adrian Klaver]

On 01/22/2016 09:30 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver  wrote:


It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve 
had there in the past.


When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either 
directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would expect verifiable 
information.


So here we have a chicken-and-egg issue. If there is no CoC (or an insufficient 
one), then people who have been hurt in the past don’t want to participate. You 
need the security of a CoC before it’s safe to come back. It is not up to them 
to prove themselves to you, to verify that they have suffered just for some 
sort of confirmation for you.


Actually they or someone does, if for no other reason then to define 
what hurt is? A good part of the endless discussion has revolved around 
at what point people take offense. Without some actual input from those 
who have felt offended, then the discussion is pretty much useless.




The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. People 
have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help fixing the 
things over which they left?

BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.


Then speak to details.



Best,

David




--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Regina Obe]

David,

Again sorry for cutting thread.  I just get the digest.

>> I am especially disgusted by the people behind 
>> http://contributor-covenant.org.  They have done nothing but to silence the 
>> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them.

> Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but saw nothing about 
> controversy or other issues in the first few pages. Maybe I need to dig a 
> little deeper?

Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my 
knowledge.  Here is the thread:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004

Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition.  So I 
shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay 
close attention to:

Coraline Ada -  https://www.patreon.com/coraline?ty=h - Please give money to 
her cause, as it's way more important than the poor folk who work to make 
PostgreSQL better for free and never ask you for a dime

Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene -  
https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200  
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 
Yes indeed he was very angered at Elia's (key Opal developer) saying gender 
reassignment is wrong for young children, and spending like $50,000 on gender 
reassignment is being out of touch with reality.  Like me saying smokers are 
killing themselves and spending money on 3 packs of cigrarettes a day could be 
better used.

Strand McCutchen - https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942  (wow what a 
trooper, he's going to help Opal polish off the Contributor Convenant so it's 
in a shape they can accept)


Ruby Creator - Yukihiro Matsumoto
And you must agree after seeing all the evidence that Yukihiro Matsumoto (who 
is not even a white guy) inventor of ruby must be a jerk for not adopting this 
wonderful thing to make people feel welcome and respected.  What awful person 
would not.  How about me?


Let's not forget about Meredith Patterson -  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI53yys3dbA=youtu.be=538  What has 
she done for open source?
Please ignore the two white guys in the talk, they are just white guys with 
white guy opinions.


Thanks,
Regina









-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Geoff Winkless]

On 22 January 2016 at 17:30, David E. Wheeler  wrote:
> The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the 
> immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. 
> People have left the community because of issues; how do you get their help 
> fixing the things over which they left?
>
> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak.

Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else"
to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?
Because the only way in which I can see it doesn't align with the
Contributor Covenant is that the CoC doesn't consider someone's
personal opinions, either private or expressed outside the Postgresql
arena, to be the responsibility of the Postgres team.

Geoff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] 9.5 new features

[David Rowley]

On 23 January 2016 at 09:49, John R Pierce  wrote:
> one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in
> partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything specific
> ?do BRIN's play into partitioned tables ?
>
> in our case, we partition very large 'event' tables by week with 6 month
> retention

BRIN can be seen as a form of "automatic partitioning", and I have
seen it described as such in documents relating to the BRIN project,
so perhaps that description has made its way further afield and that's
maybe what your coworker heard about.

If you view the inheritance partitioning feature as a method of
eliminating scans of partitions which can be proved unneeded at
planning time, then BRIN can eliminate blocks from a scan of a single
relation (or rather "pages_per_range") during execution time. So I
agree with the "automatic partitioning" description.

-- 
 David Rowley   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] 9.5 new features

[John R Pierce]

On 1/22/2016 7:13 PM, David Rowley wrote:

On 23 January 2016 at 09:49, John R Pierce  wrote:

>one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in
>partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything specific
>?do BRIN's play into partitioned tables ?
>
>in our case, we partition very large 'event' tables by week with 6 month
>retention

BRIN can be seen as a form of "automatic partitioning", and I have
seen it described as such in documents relating to the BRIN project,
so perhaps that description has made its way further afield and that's
maybe what your coworker heard about.

If you view the inheritance partitioning feature as a method of
eliminating scans of partitions which can be proved unneeded at
planning time, then BRIN can eliminate blocks from a scan of a single
relation (or rather "pages_per_range") during execution time. So I
agree with the "automatic partitioning" description.


ok, but it doesn't deal with our use case of needing to bulk delete a 6

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

[John J. Turner]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:05 PM, ivo silvestre  wrote:

> I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've 
> PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read 
> access.
> 
> I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL from a table in 
> MS SQL in another server ...
> ... I found GeoffMontee's Github, but I don't know how to install it on 
> Windows...

Perhaps this link may help:
https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/3663/sql-server-and-postgresql-foreign-data-wrapper-configuration--part-3/

The only caveat I see offhand is the use of the 'sa' account, but I can't vouch 
for that being a required mapping.

Cheers,
John



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] long transfer time for binary data

[Daniel Verite]

Johannes wrote:

> psql
> select lo_get(12345);
> +ssl -compression 6.0 sec
> -ssl  4.4 sec

psql requests results in text format so that SELECT does not
really test the transfer of binary data.
With bytea_output to 'hex', contents are inflated by 2x.

Can you tell how fast this goes for you, as a comparison point:
   \lo_export 12345 /dev/null
?

Many client interfaces use the text format, but you want to
avoid that if possible with large bytea contents.
In addition to putting  twice the data on the wire, the server has to
convert the bytes to hex and the client has to do the reverse operation,
a complete waste of CPU time on both ends.

At the SQL level, the DECLARE name BINARY CURSOR FOR query
can help to force results in binary, but as the doc says:

 http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-declare.html

  "Binary cursors should be used carefully. Many applications, including
  psql, are not prepared to handle binary cursors and expect data to
  come back in the text format."

Personally I don't have experience with JDBC, but looking at the doc:
https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/94/binary-data.html

I see this:

"To use the Large Object functionality you can use either the
LargeObject class provided by the PostgreSQL™ JDBC driver, or by using
the getBLOB() and setBLOB() methods."

If the data lives on the server as large objects, I would think that
this LargeObject class has the best potential for retrieving them
efficiently, as opposed to "SELECT lo_get(oid)" which looks like
it could trigger the undesirable round-trip to the text format.
You may want to test that or bring it up as a question to JDBC folks.


Best regards,
-- 
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:


My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ 
language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if 
not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of 
people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the 
demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further 
disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.


You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the 
reason.





Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
to see everyone protected.  Any list, by its nature, is going to
make someone feel excluded and unprotected.  In my view, the closer
it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.


Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the 
community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.



A Code of Conduct should protect all, equally and without bias.


Sincerely,

JD



--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 01/21/2016 12:40 PM, Steve Litt wrote:


"Disruption of the collaborative space" is almost meaningless, and
almost guarantees selective enforcement.

On the other hand, "patterns of behaviour which the majority of the
core team consider to be harassment" is crystal clear. What would
happen if you just dropped "Disruption of the collaborative space"? If
not, I'd suggest a much more definitive substitute for that phrase.


* Participants who engage in behaviour which can be reasonably 
considered harassment, will not be tolerated.


As mentioned previously who is doing the enforcement is not yet 
determined. It should not be part of the CoC.



Sincerely,

JD



--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

[Joshua D. Drake]

Hello,

I have been in Pasadena the last few days and wasn't able to respond. I 
believe we are very close to finishing this up. Based on the comments I 
have seen in the previous CoC [Final] thread, I have come up with the 
following:


== PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) ==

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, 
productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to 
contribute to the PostgreSQL community. It applies to all "collaborative 
space", which is defined as community communications channels (such as 
mailing lists, IRC, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).


* Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

* Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

* When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants
should always assume good intentions.

* Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be 
tolerated.


--
Command Prompt, Inc.  http://the.postgres.company/
 +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general