Re: [GENERAL] 9.5 new features
Melvin Davidson schrieb am 23.01.2016 um 16:27: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/interactive/brin-intro.html > > 62.1. Introduction > ... > "A block range is a group of pages that are physically adjacent in the table; > for each block range, some summary info is stored by the index." > > From the above, may I presume that it is best to cluster (or sort), > the table based on the intended BRIN column(s) before actually > creating the index to insure the pages are adjacent? If so, should > that not be included in the documentation, instead of implied? > That is something I am also curious about. If that was true, it would mean that BRIN indexes couldn't be used on tables that are not clustered along the index and it wouldn't make sense to have more than one BRIN index. Thomas -- 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] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2
On Jan 24, 2016, at 9:01 PM, Charles Clavadetscher wrote: > What is the point of having a check constraint that is not checked? Well, it *is* checked going into the future; it's just not checked at the time the constraint is added. Ultimately, you do want to fix the data, but this makes it a two-step process, and reduces the time the table is locked against access. -- 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] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2
Hello Althought both options are technically correct, I guess that the first one is the only reasonable one. What is the point of having a check constraint that is not checked? If all fields in the check constraint must not be null there must be a reason for it. Possibly the "wrong" data is useless anyway (some test data that was not deleted) or the constraint only applies from a certain point in time because something in the system built on top of it changed. In the latter case, since the data has a time stamp you may extend the constraints to include the point in time from which it must apply. Bye Charles > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Christophe Pettus > Sent: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 05:18 > To: Postgres General > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2 > > > On Jan 24, 2016, at 8:12 PM, "drum.lu...@gmail.com" > wrote: > > > How can I solve the problem? How can I get the command successfully be done? > > Two options: > > 1. Fix the data. > > 2. Use the NOT VALID option on ALTER TABLE ... ADD constraint, which allows > the addition of a constraint without > actually checking its validity. > > -- > -- Christophe Pettus >x...@thebuild.com > > > > -- > 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] A motion
I hate to say so folks, but I think Roxanne and Adrian and all those others that said similar things are right. We have created a sustained disruption in a mailing list that is supposed to be about purely technical PostgreSQL topics. It's bad for a Coc to start off by everyone involved in contributing to its formation violating it. At this point I feel we should: a) Move this to pgsql-advocacy --- I really think this is more of an advocacy topic as it's about making people feel welcome. Besides looking at the advocacy list, no one has said anything since January 18 http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-advocacy/2016-01/ , so they shouldn't be too bothered with our rants as we try to make PostgreSQL community a better place for everybody. In fact a lot of advocacy people I think would be more likely to care, than people coming to a general list looking for technical help. Or b) Start a new PostgreSQL mailing list - call it - pgsql-coc. Encourage all that are interested in this topic to join. Again Roxanne, Adrian, and all those ready to throw us under the bus for disrupting their technical space, I am truly sorry. I would like to think I speak for others in this discussion, that they are sorry too. Thanks, Regina -Original Message- From: Roxanne Reid-Bennett [mailto:r...@tara-lu.com] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:00 PM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: A motion On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: >>> Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. >>> >>> Been suggested already, and rejected: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org >> >> I'm an optimist. > > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If > you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the > round file. I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to noise. I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point, skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't found one that will catch every thread. But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago. +1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing a CoC. Roxanne -- 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] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2
On Jan 24, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: > 2. Use the NOT VALID option on ALTER TABLE ... ADD constraint, which allows > the addition of a constraint without actually checking its validity. And note that you might miss some potential planner optimizations this way, as the planner will not assume the constraint holds true unless you remove the NOT VALID condition from it with VALIDATE CONSTRAINT. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2
On Jan 24, 2016, at 8:12 PM, "drum.lu...@gmail.com" wrote: > How can I solve the problem? How can I get the command successfully be done? Two options: 1. Fix the data. 2. Use the NOT VALID option on ALTER TABLE ... ADD constraint, which allows the addition of a constraint without actually checking its validity. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] A motion
- Original Message - > > > > On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote: > > > >> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: > Adrian Klaver wrote: > > Motion: > > > > The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can > > argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with > > technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted > > to the Postgres web site for consideration. > > Been suggested already, and rejected: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org > >>> > >>> I'm an optimist. > >> > >> With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you > >> don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round > >> file. > > > > I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC > > discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see > > that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed > > the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to > > noise. > > > > +1, except I worry that my silence will be drowned out by the "sustained > disruption" Eh, it's been a fairly long time since a PostgreSQL mailing list was consumed by a sustained flamewar. It almost seems overdue. However, while I personally support the desire for a CoC, I also feel that a freewheeling discussion on pgsql-general is unlikely to produce any useful result. I'd be happy to see the discussion go to some other venue, be it another list or something else. Given that the Project has been without a published CoC for literally decades, it would be better to be deliberate than precipitate. --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] ERROR: check constraint - PostgreSQL 9.2
Hi all, need some help to add a constraint to an existing table (with data).
I'm running the command:
*Query:*
ALTER TABLE integrations.accounts DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS
cc_at_least_one_setting_needed,
ADD CONSTRAINT cc_at_least_one_setting_needed CHECK
(("qb_settings" IS NOT NULL) or
("xero_settings" IS NOT NULL) or
("freshbooks_settings" IS NOT NULL) or
("myob_settings" IS NOT NULL) or
("ppy_settings" IS NOT NULL));
But, I got the following error:
ERROR: check constraint "cc_at_least_one_setting_needed" is violated by
> some row
So, I made a SELECT to get some data, to see where's the issue:
SELECT * FROM integrations.accounts WHERE qb_settings IS NULL OR
xero_settings IS NULL OR freshbooks_settings IS NULL OR myob_settings
IS NULL OR ppy_settings IS NULL;
And I got 59 rows. So, it seems that's my problem - I have NULLS that
violate the CHECK CONSTRAINT.
*Question:*
How can I solve the problem? How can I get the command successfully be done?
Cheers;
Lucas Possamai
- kinghost.co.nz
- DigitalOcean
[GENERAL] TABLESAMPLE usage
Hello: I have a big table with that is always appended with new data with a unique sequence id (always incremented, or timestamp as unique index) each row. I'd like to sample, say 100 rows out of say 1000 rows evently across all the rows, so that it would return rows of1, 101, 201, 301you get idea. can TABLESAMPLEget one row for every 100 rows, based on the order of the rows added to table using the timestamp as already indexed/sorted sequence Thanks
Re: [GENERAL] A motion
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Roxanne Reid-Bennett wrote: > >> On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: > Motion: > > The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can > argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with > technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted > to the Postgres web site for consideration. Been suggested already, and rejected: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org >>> >>> I'm an optimist. >> >> With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you >> don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round file. > > I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC > discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see that > my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed the > general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to noise. > +1, except I worry that my silence will be drowned out by the "sustained disruption" > I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point, skipping > through them to find the technical discussions. You are welcome to respond > with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't found one that will > catch > every thread. > > But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as well) > the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the communal space - > and I'll add - a long time ago. > > +1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is > finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is Irony > with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing a CoC. > > Roxanne > > > -- > 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] Performance options for CPU bound multi-SUM query
I have a warehousing case where data is bucketed by a key of an hourly timestamp and 3 other columns. In addition there are 32 numeric columns. The tables are partitioned on regular date ranges, and aggregated to the lowest resolution usable. The principal use case is to select over a range of dates or hours, filter by the other key columns, and SUM() all 32 of the other columns. The execution plan shows the primary key index limits row selection efficiently, but the query appears CPU bound in performing all of those 32 SUM() aggregates. I am looking at a couple of distributed PostgreSQL forks, but until those reach feature parity with 9.5 I am hoping to stay with single node PostgreSQL. Are there any other options I can use to improve query times? Server is 64GB RAM, with work_mem set to 1GB. All SSD storage, with separate RAID-10 volumes for OS, data, and indexes. Additional setting beyond defaults as follows. ~~~ default_statistics_target = 500 maintenance_work_mem = 1GB checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 effective_cache_size = 48GB work_mem = 1GB wal_buffers = 16MB checkpoint_segments = 128 shared_buffers = 16GB max_connections = 20 ~~~
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:09 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > so what would be a better way of developing this ? This needs to come from -core, and then commented on as a complete policy, not just CoC with maybe enforcement provisions later. Not because we're a dictatorship, but if they are going to be the ones responsible for handling complaints, they need to be 100% bought into it. A CoC with no enforcement mechanism is pointless. If there's no mandate from -core to have a CoC, this is just pantomime. Let's say I arrive a -general with a proposal that PG 9.7 should speak the MongoDB wire protocol in addition to v3, complete with some working code. The comments on -general come down to: 1. A large number of people saying I am insane. 2. A smaller number of people saying, "Yes, but which version?" 3. A large number of people saying, "No, it should speak MySQL's protocol instead." I can't claim that, on the basis of #2, there's "consensus" that the feature is a good idea and should be refined and committed, but that's precisely what I see happening here. In any event, the tone of this particular discussion has gotten so out of control (basically, people are being told to shut up left and right), that I don't see a consensus is possible right now. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]
On 1/24/2016 5:52 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing. Of all the ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one right now. so what would be a better way of developing this ? -- 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] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote: But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here: I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups that want to push Western values on the rest of the world. I want to see us come together and build one heck of an economic commons that is usable by and reasonably welcoming to all without regard to, say, political or philosophical inclinations. I think that's what we all want. Or it is what I hope we want. I agree with you completely. The "reasonably considered" is a little tough but keep in mind that the idea here is that the "reasonably considered" is determined by committee, whether -core or another one. It isn't going to be a dictator. I want to thank you for your feedback on this topic. It has been very helpful. Is there anything else you see within the context of the existing CoC Final Draft that you do not like or would like to see changed? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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] A motion
On 1/23/2016 3:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. Been suggested already, and rejected: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org I'm an optimist. With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round file. I've drafted any number of emails to respond to some point in the CoC discussion and chosen to NOT sent them... primarily because I don't see that my opinion needs to be expressed individually - others have expressed the general gist... and what I would likely say will just contribute to noise. I am pretty much attempting to ignore the threads at this point, skipping through them to find the technical discussions. You are welcome to respond with a regex that will filter them for us - I haven't found one that will catch every thread. But this is where I will chip in... IMHO (and apparently Adrian's as well) the CoC discussion became a "sustained disruption" of the communal space - and I'll add - a long time ago. +1 to Adrian's suggestion - move it into it's own list. That Adrian is finding it necessary to leave the -GENERAL list due to the noise... is Irony with a capital "I" given your stated reasons for the group needing a CoC. Roxanne -- 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 v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story > style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves it. This is > the largest feature the community has tried to design and implement. It is > going to take a little time. "The document has changed" is not a consensus emerging. A significant portion of the participants don't want a CoC at all, and they are feeling ignored. A significant portion of the participants don't want this CoC, because they feel it's not strong enough, and they're feeling ignored. Those two parties are not trivial; in fact, they make up most of the people who are commenting right now. > This shouldn't cause any rifts. And, yet, it is. > If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of this > feature, nobody is asking you to. Participation does not need to be limited to copy-editing. Of all the ways to develop a community CoC, we're engaged in just about the worst possible one right now. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our > jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business. Then know that the current draft of the CoC is easily interpreted as giving shelter to abusers. > I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of > enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on its > own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member (with or > without the CoC). Yep. And as Chrisophe pointed out, none of it will mean anything without an explicit and enforced policy for dealing with violations. Best, David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 05:20 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just doing some of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and majority of contributors come up with. I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that consensus is not emerging here. Worse yet, You are wrong and the fact that we have gone from a motion style, to a story style, to a continually and incrementally improving draft proves it. This is the largest feature the community has tried to design and implement. It is going to take a little time. I don't see anyone rushing to commit or roll back other features. it is causing huge rifts in the community while not resulting in an agreed-to product. This shouldn't cause any rifts. The community evolves. 10 years ago nobody would even think of having a CoC. Did the community change? No, the new people coming in had different requirements. Those people want a CoC, they feel better when it is there. If you don't want to constructively participate in the development of this feature, nobody is asking you to. We are all volunteers. You are welcome to not read another email on this thread and just wait for whatever -core inevitably decides. If -Core would like to step up and take this over now, by all means. However, I think they are hoping that we are all adult enough to figure this mess out ourselves so they can commit it. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community to deal with it. 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help. I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be. How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. In retrospect I revoke my support of this idea entirely. It just isn't our jurisdiction. If doesn't happen in our yard then it isn't our business. I would also note that this document isn't going to be the end all of enforcement. Ultimately -core has the final say. -Core can determine on its own if it wants to enforce against a particular community member (with or without 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
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 5:15 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up > with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then > also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just > doing some of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and > majority of contributors come up with. I think that it is the understatement of the year (to date) to say that consensus is not emerging here. Worse yet, it is causing huge rifts in the community while not resulting in an agreed-to product. I am pro-CoC, but without a documented enforcement and resolution mechanism, we might as well just add "be excellent to each other" on postgresql.org and be done with it. I'd suggest that -core take over from this point, and decide on a full package, rather than continuing this process here in -general. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism. I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That is the detail in which the devils will live. Based on our structure it doesn't work that way. At a minimum we will come up with a CoC and it will be passed to -core for final approval. -core will then also define how they want implement it (or even turn us down). We are just doing some of the hard work for them so that they see what the community and majority of contributors come up with. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. If it can't be defined it can't be enforced. That said, an abuser or harasser generally has a horrible tendency to do it more than once. If it happens here, the CoC will apply. 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? How does that person or entity resolve things? What confidentiality promises are made? Discussed previously. That is to be resolved once the CoC is complete. 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] A motion
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 17:27 -0500, Dane Foster wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern ment.com> wrote: > > Adrian, > > I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list. > > The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be. > > Just sit on the sidelines until the show is > > over. > > Look forward to the next awesome year. > > My CoC: "keep it technical" > > > > Fore > > > > +1 To Adrian sticking around. I'm relatively new to participating on > this list and PostgreSQL in general and you've been extremely helpful > to me personally in answering questions I've raised and providing > guidance/suggestions. I'm no fan of the CoC conversation either so I > scan then delete and go on w/ my day. It's a strategy that is working > for me and I hope you will adopt it and stick around. Newbies like > myself need people like on this list. > > Regards, > > Dane > Plus one. It's supposed to be a technical list. -- 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 v2]
On 1/24/2016 2:51 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That is the detail in which the devils will live. Oh, save us from that.my original quoting of Warren Zevon's Lawyers Guns and Money goes double for 'the process'. -- 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] CoC [Final v2]
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers > wrote: > > >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any > >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we > >> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this > >> need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving > >> more general social or political questions. Nonetheless the core team > does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless > of background feel generally welcome. > > > > I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too. > > Alas, no, as it does not address abuse. > > > Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to > make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would > that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an > organization? > > If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to > interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes. > Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s > not on our turf. It’s not politics, it’s hate. > First, I think I see your point. Person A says something that person B takes offense to. Person B writes many irate emails off the list Person A complains. Thats a hard one to address. Personally I am fine with this being extended on a case-by-case basis as long as there is a close nexus to community resources. However, one thing I am deeply concerned about is defining hate speech in this case. "reasonably seen as harassment" is extremely vague. It could for example include email signatures displaying political messages someone takes strong, personal offense to (my example from earlier). Once you start down this route, the end result is a PostgreSQL community that has become a political force beyond things like conventions (as I say, I see the topless dancer issue as a legitimate community keep-the-peace issue not one of judging the question of topless dancers generally -- if people want to go out afterwards to such a place, I would not join, but I dont think the core community should get involved). I think that would be a very big mistake. I think there is a legitimate need for something like the social justice clause Josh originally added, but I also see why it was removed. But I will be crystal clear on my (deeply political ;-) viewpoint here: I do not want to see the PostgreSQL community get hijacked by groups that want to push Western values on the rest of the world. I want to see us come together and build one heck of an economic commons that is usable by and reasonably welcoming to all without regard to, say, political or philosophical inclinations. I think that's what we all want. Or it is what I hope we want. Best Wishes Chris Travers David -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] A motion
2016-01-24 22:10 GMT+02:00 Adrian Klaver : > Thought long and hard about this and while it is possible, it is not > something I feel I should have to do. This conversation in its many threads > has spun out of control and into areas that a) out of the scope of this > list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of the various > 'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to contributing to at least > some of the previous and that pains me. What pains me even more is the > decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from --general. Filtered or not > this list is not a place for me anymore and continued participation will > only anger me more and that goes places I do not want to go. I will > continue on other postgres-- lists as long as they stay untainted. Adrian, Do not take emotional steps. You're of a great value to the -general list. Let things settle down a bit for a while — I'm quite sure list will come back to it's common shape. Please, do not go :) -- Victor Y. Yegorov
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:48 PM, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: > I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. I think those need to put in place at the same time. It's very hard to judge how good or bad a CoC is absent a reporting mechanism. I'd respectfully suggest that we table the discussion of the CoC text at this point, let the high passions moderate a bit, and talk about the process. That is the detail in which the devils will live. -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Christophe Pettus wrote: > What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution > mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? > How does that person or entity resolve things? What confidentiality promises > are made? I think that’s planned for a separate document, to be linked. But it need to be put in place at the same time, IME. Otherwise the CoC on its own has no teeth. Best, David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example: o_O > Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community. > > How do we deal with that? > > 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails > community to deal with it. > > 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help. > > I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not > making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be. How do you define “in the Pg community”? Is it someone who has posted to a known forum at least once? Someone who has been to a conference? What if they have never participated in a community forum, but use PostgreSQL at work? Maybe they would eventually submit a bug report or ask a question. How do you gauge that? Me, I don’t think you can. If someone reports abusive behavior by a member of the Pg community, it should not matter whether or not the person doing the reporting is a member of the community, only that the reported abuser is. Best, David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == What is missing from this, first and foremost, is a reporting and resolution mechanism. If someone feels the CoC has been violated, who do they talk to? How does that person or entity resolve things? What confidentiality promises are made? -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.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] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:14 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes. Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. It’s not politics, it’s hate. O.k. now I am starting to see your point. For example: Pg person A is harassing person B in the Rails community. How do we deal with that? 1. If person B is not in the Pg community then it is up to the Rails community to deal with it. 2. If person B is in the Pg community they can request help. I am open to wording on #2. I tried a couple of times but had trouble not making it a larger declaration that I think it needs to be. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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] A motion
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:00 PM, bret_stern < bret_st...@machinemanagement.com> wrote: > Adrian, > I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list. > The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be. > Just sit on the sidelines until the show is > over. > Look forward to the next awesome year. > My CoC: "keep it technical" > > Fore > +1 To Adrian sticking around. I'm relatively new to participating on this list and PostgreSQL in general and you've been extremely helpful to me personally in answering questions I've raised and providing guidance/suggestions. I'm no fan of the CoC conversation either so I scan then delete and go on w/ my day. It's a strategy that is working for me and I hope you will adopt it and stick around. Newbies like myself need people like on this list. Regards, Dane
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote: >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we >> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this >> need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving >> more general social or political questions. Nonetheless the core team does >> make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless of >> background feel generally welcome. > > I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too. Alas, no, as it does not address abuse. > Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a > speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be > off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? If they make hateful statements about members of the community, or to interested parties who then report them to the community, then yes. Otherwise, we’re saying we’re okay with abuse of any kind as long as it’s not on our turf. It’s not politics, it’s hate. Best, David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
Joshua for the record I am not upset about raising this issue. However I am concerned that it is becoming counter-productive. It is taking too much time away from the real work and aim of this forum. Otherwise it is necessary. -Original Message- From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:j...@commandprompt.com] Sent: 24 January 2016 17:31 To: Geoff Winkless; FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that > you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come > about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to > pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it > actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or > you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter > what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or > against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities > and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC. > > I'm sure that'll be fine, yes? Enough. Sarcasm is not productive. This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up. This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it is crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do them in a professional and productive way because that is who we are. If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that. 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 v2]
Geoff and all, I only seconded Dave's point which has been raised several times. Here what he had written Original point > * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views. Dave wrote >This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just >expressing an opposing view!”). If 50% disagree that this can happen then fine. I will go with the majority. But let's finalise this thread and move on. -Original Message- From: gwinkl...@gmail.com [mailto:gwinkl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Winkless Sent: 24 January 2016 15:37 To: FarjadFarid(ChkNet); Postgres General Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. > > Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the list. We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC. I'm sure that'll be fine, yes? 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] A motion
Adrian,I hope you reconsider. You have far more value to the list.The CoC dictators will flame out, then where will we be.Just sit on the sidelines until the show isover.Look forward to the next awesome year.My CoC: "keep it technical" Fore Original message From: Adrian Klaver Date: 01/24/2016 12:10 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "Joshua D. Drake" , Berend Tober , pgsql-general Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A motion On 01/23/2016 03:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: >>> Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. >>> >>> Been suggested already, and rejected: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org >> >> I'm an optimist. > > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you > don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round > file. Thought long and hard about this and while it is possible, it is not something I feel I should have to do. This conversation in its many threads has spun out of control and into areas that a) out of the scope of this list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of the various 'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to contributing to at least some of the previous and that pains me. What pains me even more is the decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from --general. Filtered or not this list is not a place for me anymore and continued participation will only anger me more and that goes places I do not want to go. I will continue on other postgres-- lists as long as they stay untainted. > > JD > >> > > -- 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] How to stop autovacuum for daily partition old tables
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Scott Mead wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 19:54, AI Rumman wrote: > > But, will it not create transaction wraparound for those table? > > Thanks. > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Melvin Davidson > wrote: > >> >> ALTER TABLE your_schema.your_table SET (autovacuum_enabled = false, >> toast.autovacuum_enabled = false); >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:22 PM, AI Rumman wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a table with daily partition schema on Postgresql 9.1 where we >>> are keeping 2 years of data. >>> Often I experience that autovacuum process is busy with old tables where >>> there is no change. How can I stop it? >>> Please advice. >>> >>> I typically run a vacuum freeze in old partitions that don't get any > changes as part of a maintenance script. If the tables actually get no > changes, autovac should ignore them unless wrap becomes an issue at > max_freeze_age... Which, it shouldn't of you vacuum freeze and there are no > changes. > Unfortunately that is not true (although it may become true in 9.6). Currently the only way PostgreSQL has of knowing that a table is all-frozen is to read the whole table and observe each tuple to be frozen. What I do is always set vacuum_cost_page_hit and vacuum_cost_page_miss to zero. Vacuuming an all-frozen table for wrap around then goes very quickly, as there is nothing to write and the reading goes very fast. The only problem I've had with that is for very large gin or gist indexes, which are not vacuumed in physical order but rather logical order. Even then the problem is mostly how long it takes to do the vacuum (i.e. those settings fail to fix the problem, but don't cause more problems), not the impact it has on the IO of other processes. Your mileage may vary, of course. Cheers, Jeff
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 11:28 AM, Chris Travers wrote: That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel welcome. I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside from being the politics of community governance).I don't see the PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some participants and therefore unwelcome. And that is position is reasonable. It is political in the sense of what is considered acceptable. A better term than I used is probably controversial. The reality is, a lot of society doesn't have a problem with topless dancers, nudity or porn. There are some that think that it manipulates and abuses women. There are others that think they have a right to an opinion on what these women chose to do. There are some who are trying to do the right thing but don't know quite how to go about it. Every one of them think they are right. So trying a slightly better wording: * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or political questions. Nonetheless the core team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome. Your wording boils down to: * The community is neither competent nor interested in resolvingmore general social or political questions. But in fact, we are. We have influence and the ability to exert that influence (again -core and the Russian dancers). Further we are people and people have opinions. They key here is to accept that and enforce that acceptance on those what won't. That is why the CoC exists. I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too. Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? No. Nor does the CoC state that it would be. The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political community and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here is to keep the peace so to speak. Good. I believe this point is solved quite clearly here: * The community is not interested in resolving more general social or political questions. “Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.” Mark Twain. I believe the existing CoC solves that without the added wording above but I am certainly willing to listen if others disagree. Consider that if anyone started spouting political views (which rarely happens within this community anyway) that the existing community rules (regardless of CoC) would apply. It would become off-topic. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 12:28 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake > mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>> wrote: On > 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: > > * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any > political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which > we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect > this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in > resolving more general social or political questions. > > That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is > when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. > That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this > community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the > Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because > -core wants all people to feel welcome. > > I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside > from being the politics of community governance).I don't see the > PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of > topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some > participants and therefore unwelcome. And that is position is > reasonable. > > So trying a slightly better wording: > > * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any > political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which > we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect > this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in > resolving more general social or political questions. Nonetheless > the core team does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where > all people, regardless of background feel generally welcome. I too strongly think the CoC needs something like this. But two nits: 1) I don't understand what you mean by > ...aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support) 2) I don't think "neither competent nor interested" sounds right. a) Nobody is "competent" in the sense of an engineering problem. These issues are "solved" by one side gathering sufficient political support to impose their solution on the other (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse). b) While the "community as some sort of abstract entity may not be "interested", many members of that community certainly are... perhaps sometimes to the detriment of the community's primary purpose. Perhaps replacing > The community is neither competent nor interested in > resolving more general social or political questions. with something like > Such general social or political questions are often highly > divisive particularly given the diverse membership we strive > to attract. would be better? -- 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] A motion
On 01/23/2016 03:31 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:08 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: On 01/23/2016 03:03 PM, Berend Tober wrote: Adrian Klaver wrote: Motion: The Coc discussion be moved to its own list where those who care can argue to their hearts content and leave the rest of us to deal with technical questions. Upon a decision on said list the result be posted to the Postgres web site for consideration. Been suggested already, and rejected: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56970135.6060...@computer.org I'm an optimist. With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round file. Thought long and hard about this and while it is possible, it is not something I feel I should have to do. This conversation in its many threads has spun out of control and into areas that a) out of the scope of this list b) into conduct that would fall a foul of some or all of the various 'code' that have been proposed. I plead guilty to contributing to at least some of the previous and that pains me. What pains me even more is the decision I have reached, to unsubscribe from --general. Filtered or not this list is not a place for me anymore and continued participation will only anger me more and that goes places I do not want to go. I will continue on other postgres-- lists as long as they stay untainted. JD -- 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
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > The tl;dr; here is: > > If a "human" is being harassed in this community, it is not o.k.. > If a human is not being respected in this community, it is not o.k.. /me likes. 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] CoC [Final v2]
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: >> >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we >> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this >> need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving >> more general social or political questions. >> > > That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when > -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That > position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community > doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian > conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all > people to feel welcome. > I don't know that this is really a political resolution though (aside from being the politics of community governance).I don't see the PostgreSQL core committee taking a position on the question of topless dancing, just that it would be inappropriate for some participants and therefore unwelcome. And that is position is reasonable. So trying a slightly better wording: > * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any > political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we > support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this > need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving > more general social or political questions. Nonetheless the core team > does make an effort at ensuring an atmosphere where all people, regardless > of background feel generally welcome. > I think that would address David Wheeler's concern too. Suppose someone from a divisive organization using PostgreSQL were to make a speech at a PostgreSQL conference about a technical topic. Would that be off-limits just because they are politically divisive as an organization? The point then is just to note that PostgreSQL is not a political community and has no intention of becoming one, but that one aspect here is to keep the peace so to speak. > Sincerely, > > JD > > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ > +1-503-667-4564 > PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
Josh, Two changes I would like to the Coc as it stands: > * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free > of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. Change the word "must" to "try to". You yourself said some people have called you sexist and against obese people because of some statements you made. They would say you did not ensure your language was free of personal attacks. Only bystanders can judge. >> On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: >> If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: >> >> * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any >> political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we >> support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this >> need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving >> more general social or political questions. > That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when > -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. > That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community > doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference > to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel > welcome. > Sincerely, > JD I would add another bullet: * Participants try to look out for the well-being of each other. If a participant feels strongly that someone is being unfairly treated or ignored, then they are encouraged to speak up about it. The reason for this last bullet is like in the example you said - if a woman says having topless dancers is wrong, then she could be viewed as a humorless feminist. If a man says it, it carries more weight. So in this case, a man is better able to defend the concerns of a woman. Similarly if I see a man being harassed by a woman, my voice as a woman carries more weight than a guy making the same exact statement or trying to defend himself. 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] repeated characters in SQL
Francisco Olarte writes: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 PM, wrote: >> I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw >> me a bit. > Notepad ++ is, AFAIK, an editor, it SHOULD (within reason) let you > write any text. > The double quote is needed due to the quoting rules of the language. > You want the regexp engine to see the characters leftp, dot, rightp, > backslash, one. But backslah is the scape character in strings ( in > many languages ), so you need to escape it too. In this particular case, the extra backslash was needed only because the OP used E'...' syntax for his string literal. In a plain SQL string literal, backslash isn't special. regards, tom lane -- 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] repeated characters in SQL
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:05 PM, wrote: > I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw > me a bit. Notepad ++ is, AFAIK, an editor, it SHOULD (within reason) let you write any text. The double quote is needed due to the quoting rules of the language. You want the regexp engine to see the characters leftp, dot, rightp, backslash, one. But backslah is the scape character in strings ( in many languages ), so you need to escape it too. The same happens in, for example, C and Java. To put those five chars in a string you need "(.)\\1". If you send "(.)\1" to a C compiler it will build the string leftp, dot, rightp, SOH=(char)(1). It will arrive to the backslash when parsing, see it is followed by a digit less than 8, interpret it as an octal escape, and emit the SOH. Francisco Olarte. -- 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] repeated characters in SQL
Thanks David...so it's looking at each character, storing it in /1, then
comparing the "next" character with what is in /1.
I guess the escape character (which is not needed in, say, Notepad++) threw
me a bit.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 2:32 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 24 January 2016 at 12:44, Govind Chettiar wrote:
> > I have a simple table consisting of a bunch of English words. I am
> trying
> > to find words that have repeated characters in them, for example
> > apple
> > tattoo
> >
> > but not
> >
> > orange
> > lemon
> >
> > I know that only a maximum of one repetition can occur
> >
> > I tried various options like
> > SELECT word FROM public."SpellItWords"
> > WHERE word ~ E'(.)\1{2,}'
> >
> > SELECT word FROM public."SpellItWords"
> > WHERE word ~ E'([a-z])\1{2}'
> >
> > What finally worked was this
> > SELECT word FROM public."SpellItWords"
> > WHERE word ~ E'(.)\\1'
> >
> > But I don't really understand what this does...Can you explain?
>
> The ~ operator is a regular expression matching operator, and the
> (.)\1 is a regular expression. More details here
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-matching.html
>
> The regular expression . matches a single character, since that . is
> wrapped in () the regex engine captures the match and stores it in a
> variable, this is called a capture group. Since this is the first such
> capture group in the regular expression, then the value matching the .
> gets stored in the variable \1, so your regex basically says; "match a
> single character which has the same single character to its immediate
> right hand side". The extra \ is just an escape character.
>
> --
> David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 09:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs. I would ask that you not make this about yourself. We are here to discuss the CoC. If you don't have productive statements to be made specifically about this text, please move on. == 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
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 09:39 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Sarcasm is not productive. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, but not the second :p The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant (other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are", let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive. This thread is not about the Contributor Covenant. This thread is about working the CoC that this community is already progressing through. It is already clear that primary contributors in this community do not want something as politically charged as the Contributor Covenant. At its core, PostgreSQL is a practical community, not a political one. That is why the CoC we are working on is practical, succinct and to the point. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- 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 v2]
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to > be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. And as for being not helpful, I was being helpful and my helpful and reasoned points were ignored because they simply didn't want to hear them. My current attitude is a direct consequence of theirs. 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] CoC [Final v2]
On 24 January 2016 at 17:34, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when > -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position > was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't > care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to > have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel > welcome. Apart from those people who think that topless dancers are fine? But who cares about them, cos they're just unreconstructed bigots, right? 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] CoC [Final v2]
On 24 January 2016 at 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Sarcasm is not productive. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic. OK, I was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, but not the second :p The most significant problem I see with the Contributor Covenant (other than my personal feeling that Postgres shouldn't have anything to do members' lives outside the community, but that's just my opinion) is the potential for legal wranglings that would ensue. Just being in a position to say "we know what legal problems there are", let alone being able to say "we know that we are covered against any potential legal issues" would be prohibitively expensive. If someone's prepared to put themselves in a position to overcome that issue then it's just an argument over points of view, really. 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] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 08:13 AM, Chris Travers wrote: If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or political questions. That won't work. The community does take positions. A good example is when -core denounced the topless dancers at the Russian conference. That position was taken without consideration that at a lot of this community doesn't care, won't care, or agrees with the right for the Russian conference to have those dancers. It was done so because -core wants all people to feel welcome. 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 07:36 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC. I'm sure that'll be fine, yes? Enough. Sarcasm is not productive. This is a difficult topic. A good portion of this community doesn't want a CoC at all. A good portion are upset with me for even bringing it up. This is something that I brought up in protest because I believe that it is crucial to the growth of this community. Remember that I don't want one either but sometimes we do things we don't want to do. We still do them in a professional and productive way because that is who we are. If you are participating in this thread, be productive. If you are going to be sarcastic and not helpful, get off the thread. Do not turn our community into a SJW fight. We are better than that. 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 v2]
On 01/24/2016 02:34 AM, Chris Travers wrote: We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers. The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate the response to their behaviour. Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer" is not a bad option. I think that would be covered under support documents. Certainly we could have a page that has lots of discussion points about things people can do under these circumstances, but that doesn't belong in the CoC proper. This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”). Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate the below? What is abusive? And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably abusive behavior? It is rather impossible to be abusive and have it not be a personal attack or use of disparaging words. * Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks. 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 v2]
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, S McGraw wrote: > On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add > > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? > > > >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto: > pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent: > 24 January 2016 00:01 > >> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made > >> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor > >> to abusers. [...] > > As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal. > My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not > and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on > within the Postgresql community. > > The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual > free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*] > With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for > me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious > and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum > it occurs at. > > [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism If I could make one proposal for an additional clause: * PostgreSQL is a community project and takes no position on any political question aside from its usage in the public sector (which we support). We expect communication in community fora to respect this need. The community is neither competent nor interested in resolving more general social or political questions. In my view this establishes inclusiveness and pluralism by simply saying we aren't interested in the rest of the question. > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 01/24/2016 07:53 AM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add > these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? > >> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler >> Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01 >> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made >> outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor >> to abusers. [...] As I wrote previously, not "everybody" is happy with that proposal. My opinions and what I do outside the Postgresql community is not and should not be an issue for the Postgresql community to act on within the Postgresql community. The result of failing to provide this basic protection for individual free speech can be seen in the McCarthyism in the 1950's in the US [*] With all the open source projects that need help, it would be hard for me to want to help ones that promote a return to that kind of vicious and harmful philosophy, no matter which end of the political spectrum it occurs at. [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism -- 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 v2]
I don't agree that this should be about anything more than protecting the commons. I also do not want to see the PostgreSQL community pushed into taking stands on political causes because of people arguing about what viewpoints are more privileged than others. I think the CoC is good as it stands. On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 3:53 PM, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) < farjad.fa...@checknetworks.com> wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. > > Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? > > Thank you. > > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto: > pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler > Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01 > To: Josh Drake > Cc: Psql_General (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > 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.). > > We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the > community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers. > > > * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views. > > This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just > expressing an opposing view!”). > > > * 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. > > This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should > recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”). > > > * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be > tolerated. > > Link to enforcement policy will of course be required. > > 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 > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On 24 January 2016 at 14:53, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. > > Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? Sure, why not? Forget that at least 50% (I'm being generous) of the contributors to the thread disagree, we'll just do what you want because you're jumping on every thread and forcing your opinion on the list. We'll just need you and Dave to sign a legally binding contract that you will provide indemnity for any and all actions that might come about as a result, in all locations worldwide. Oh, and you'll need to pay the legal fees for lawyers (your own and ours) to ensure that it actually does that and that you either have the funds to cover it or you're paying for indemnity insurance that does cover it (no matter what happens or including whether the action is on behalf of or against one of the core team), and to advise on the exact liabilities and responsibilities of whoever implements the CoC. I'm sure that'll be fine, yes? 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] CoC [Final v2]
I do agree with Dave on the points he has made. Can we please add these so everyone is happy and finalise the CoC? Thank you. -Original Message- From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David E. Wheeler Sent: 24 January 2016 00:01 To: Josh Drake Cc: Psql_General (E-mail) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2] On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 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.). We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers. > * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views. This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just expressing an opposing view!”). > * 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. This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”). > * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be > tolerated. Link to enforcement policy will of course be required. 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
Dear All, There has been much development based on many good comments and broader participation on this thread that I have seen in the past which no doubt is the envy of many other companies and open source communities. However we seem to have moved away from the core goal of this thread which should result in better development of postgresql's community. As a result a number of questions have not been answered. So can we please wrap up the CoC points as it stands? No doubt there will be future revisions. Kind Regards Farjad Farid -- 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
> On 24 Jan 2016, at 1:48, Regina Obe wrote: > So the point is stop assuming who has experience and who doesn't simply by > how people look. +1 To expand on that: Don't let your prejudices get the better of you. Assuming that other people are prejudiced about you is just another prejudice. The people you're communicating with on a mailing list are individuals, not groups, so do not generalise. In most cases you do not know enough about them to make such assumptions, and that's assuming they are valid, which they generally are not (yikes! a generalisation!). > The irony is that PostgreSQL is so diverse that a Coc leads to nothing but > huge arguments about what's okay in one culture and not another. We can only > go by intent and not what was done. If we can't say that, then a Coc does > us no good. I've already violated all Cocs at least 3 times in this whole > conversation. > > Thanks, > Regina What about this for a CoC?: 1. Do not discuss a CoC. But, this side-thread has been going on long enough I think. Let's wrap this up, shall we? Regards, Alban Hertroys -- If you can't see the forest for the trees, cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest. -- 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] A motion
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-01-23 15:31:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > With respect Adrian, that is a motion that never stands a chance. If you > > don't want to read it, set up a filter that sends it right to the round > > file. > > It'd help if there weren't six, but one thread... > It would also help if threads were clearly marked in the subject ;-) Ok, in context I can figure out what the motion probably concerns, but a computer cannot. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 01/23/2016 04:00 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Joshua D. Drake >> wrote: >> >> 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.). >>> >> >> We need to also cover abuse by members of the community made outside the >> community. Otherwise we’ll appear to give safe harbor to abusers. >> > > The private lives of members are the private lives of members. Let > whatever space they are in and the requirements of that space dictate the > response to their behaviour. Additionally, "if you are harassed, maybe you should consult a lawyer" is not a bad option. > > > >> * Participants will be tolerant of opposing views. >>> >> >> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“I was just >> expressing an opposing view!”). >> > > Can you provide an example of said behaviour that does not also violate > the below? What is abusive? And doesn't any formulation provide cover for arguably abusive behavior? > > >> * 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. >>> >> >> This statement can be used in defense of abusive behavior (“You should >> recognize the intention behind what I said was benign!”). >> > > Yes it can and then when they are corrected, if they continue, the below > kicks in. > > >> * Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be >>> tolerated. >>> >> >> Link to enforcement policy will of course be required. >> > > Yes but as mentioned earlier, first comes the CoC, then comes the > enforcement policy. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > >> Best, >> >> David >> >> > > -- > 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 > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 + > > Geoff Winkless wrote: > >> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled > >> to the same level of protection. > > > > The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some > > elaboration. > > I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language? > > http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle > http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need > > > Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You > > know exactly what I mean. > > No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who > have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by > generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it. > With due respect to everyone in this conversation, the emphasis should not be in protecting people. It should be in protecting the project as a common endeavor. Protecting individuals from certain kinds of behavior is necessary in accomplishing that. But it isn't the primary goal and should not be. I also think it is important to set that expectation early on. That this is about the needs of the community. I am concerned that there is a drive to jump on a particular cultural bandwagon here which may *appear* to be inclusive but is in fact very exclusionary and would push the project into a very distinctly political direction internationally. > Geoff > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right
On 24 January 2016 at 00:06, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that >> generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? The >> individual started the conversation and I am also classified as obese >> (barely, I won't be in a month). >> >> I have been accused of being sexist because I asked if there was chalk (for >> bouldering) that was better for women because their skin is generally softer >> and the chalk wasn't staying on the respective persons hand. A scientific >> sexist fact. >> >> I have been accused of being sexist because I said it wasn't sexist that >> Samsung doesn't make full feature/performance phones that are smaller for a >> woman's hands. > > So are you able to recognize the ways in which those statements can come > across as prejudiced? No. None of the statements Josh describes exhibits any prejudice. It absolutely isn't prejudiced to make factual statements. It may be that the facts are uncomfortable, but it's not prejudiced to reiterate them. It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption about a specific female climber based on the scientific fact that most women have softer skin. It _would_ be prejudiced to make an assumption that a fat person is lazy and eats too much. It's a factual statement that the proportion of African Americans in prison is proportionally high. It would prejudiced to a) assume that because of this an African American you meet is a criminal, b) suggest that the reason African Americans are in prison is because they're inherently more likely to commit criminal acts. Are we a bit clearer about what constitutes prejudice now? > We *all* make mistakes. Ideally what one does is to try to recognize them > and take responsibility for them. An *abuser* will do neither. There you go with these pejorative terms again. Someone who disagrees with your lifestyle and makes generalised statements about that lifestyle which offend you is not abusing you, and yet as far as I can see that is what the Covenant has been used to combat (and it appears designed specifically so to do). 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
On 24 January 2016 at 00:15, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:00:27 + > Geoff Winkless wrote: >> Did I say we all need equal protection? No. I said we're all entitled >> to the same level of protection. > > The preceding two sentences form a distinction that will need some > elaboration. I'm not quite sure how. Maybe English isn't your first language? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/entitle http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/need > Come on, the preceding is contrived to the point of being silly. You > know exactly what I mean. No, it absolutely isn't. Your point is "here is a group of people who have no right to an opinion because XYZ". My point is that by generalising to the group you are ignoring the individuals within it. 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
Sorry for top posting... I like what you said at the end Shouldn't the simple rule of thumb be that the discussion on the mailing list should be project related and all personal references should be avoided instead of finding the balancing equation.. Someone mentioned earlier that signatures could be offensive, but signatures are personal and I am not sure if they should be part of the conduct as that is not a statement made to an individual. Thanks Rajeev On Jan 24, 2016 06:19, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:43:11 -0800 > "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > > > > I have been accused of being a fat hater. My crime? I suggested that > > generally speaking, obesity is a matter of diet and exercise. Worse? > > The individual started the conversation and I am also classified as > > obese (barely, I won't be in a month). > > Perfect! > > I know a person who is fat because his/her (I'll call the person male > from now on) thyroid was removed, and weight control is extremely > difficult under those circumstances. Do you think he'd feel welcome on > a list where somebody said "generally speaking, obesity is a matter of > diet and exercise?"[1] And then perhaps someone else says he thinks fat > people are lazy. > > Is my overweight friend going to set you straight? Probably not. He > knows how much antifat prejudice exists in the employment marketplace, > and doesn't want to do anything do the slightest thing to "out" himself > to potential networking associates who haven't seen him in person. > > And for what? What does a person's weight have to do with a great > and powerful Open Source relational database? Not a dam thing. > > Hey, if the conflict is about technology, by all means have at it. It's > an argument that needs to happen in order to produce the best result. > But when it comes to gender, gender preference, gender-assignment, > race, nationality, religion, body shape, or political party (unless the > party takes a stand on technology), the CoC should ban negative > statements about that crap. > > [1] I'm not faulting your example. Your example is relevant to the > discussion. I'm faulting a hypothetical person who comes on the list > and says that, apropos to nothing. > > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
