Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
David Fetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:56:33PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for > > v7.2, we'd refuse it? > > That depends on what you mean by "refuse." Such a patch wouldn't > resurrect the original Postgres with POSTQUEL and cause us to support > it, and it won't cause us to start supporting PostgreSQL 7.2 again > either. Okay, but suppose the patch in question breaks the version in question in some subtle but horrible way? If the community isn't "supporting" the release in question then it implies that it won't go to the effort of testing the patch, subjecting it to a beta period, etc. But since the patch would be applied by the community, the implication would be that the community *endorses* the patch in question, since the official source would be changed to reflect it. If the patch breaks the release horribly, just blindly accepting it wouldn't do good things to the community's reputation. And that means that the only really good way to guard against such an occurrance is to subject the patch to the same process that's used for officially supported releases. At that point, there's no real distinction between "officially supported" and "not officially supported". I doubt the community wants to go down that road. The acceptance of a patch by the community probably implies a lot more than one would think at first glance, so this is certainly an issue that should be thought all the way through. -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
> > That would be fairly trivial ... let me add it to the 'todo > list' ... > > I take it that it would be safe to relegate the > /pub/source/OLD stuff > > there too? > > Not so trivial to put behind a web interface or the download > tracker though. Is it really necessary to have a separate > archive downloads site? It's not like the old ones get in the > way, or cost anything other than disk space on the mirrors to > store (and I've only ever heard mirror admins say how small > our site is compared to many others!). > > Plus of course, weren't we trying to reduce the number of VMs/sites? Agreed. If we're going to keep it, just sticking it in a /old/ directory is definitly a lot better. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Dave Page wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier Sent: 01 December 2005 17:01 To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Euler Taveira de Oliveira; Richard Huxton; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 11:35 schrieb Euler Taveira de Oliveira: What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? That gave me a good laugh, but there is something to be said about moving all no longer supported releases (according to the criteria that are being discussed) to an unmirrored site, say, archive.postgresql.org. That would be fairly trivial ... let me add it to the 'todo list' ... I take it that it would be safe to relegate the /pub/source/OLD stuff there too? Not so trivial to put behind a web interface or the download tracker though. Is it really necessary to have a separate archive downloads site? It's not like the old ones get in the way, or cost anything other than disk space on the mirrors to store (and I've only ever heard mirror admins say how small our site is compared to many others!). Plus of course, weren't we trying to reduce the number of VMs/sites? Agreed. I see no virtue in this at all. If we continue to make stuff available it must be because someone will need it. I can see that happening if some catastrophe happens on an old system, in which case the person hunting is likely to need to find it easily and possibly fast. The network traffic involved in mirroring something that doesn't change is usually trivial, and disk space seems to be at most a few $ per Gb these days, so surely this is not a resource issue. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier > Sent: 01 December 2005 17:01 > To: Peter Eisentraut > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Euler Taveira de Oliveira; > Richard Huxton; Robert Treat; Magnus Hagander; Marc G. > Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 11:35 schrieb Euler Taveira > de Oliveira: > >> What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? > > > > That gave me a good laugh, but there is something to be > said about moving all > > no longer supported releases (according to the criteria > that are being > > discussed) to an unmirrored site, say, archive.postgresql.org. > > That would be fairly trivial ... let me add it to the 'todo > list' ... I > take it that it would be safe to relegate the /pub/source/OLD > stuff there > too? Not so trivial to put behind a web interface or the download tracker though. Is it really necessary to have a separate archive downloads site? It's not like the old ones get in the way, or cost anything other than disk space on the mirrors to store (and I've only ever heard mirror admins say how small our site is compared to many others!). Plus of course, weren't we trying to reduce the number of VMs/sites? Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 11:35 schrieb Euler Taveira de Oliveira: What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? That gave me a good laugh, but there is something to be said about moving all no longer supported releases (according to the criteria that are being discussed) to an unmirrored site, say, archive.postgresql.org. That would be fairly trivial ... let me add it to the 'todo list' ... I take it that it would be safe to relegate the /pub/source/OLD stuff there too? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Csaba Nagy wrote: Maybe "mausoleum" would be even better name :-D Come on people, it's clearly: elephants-graveyard.postgresl.org -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Maybe "mausoleum" would be even better name :-D Cheers, Csaba. On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 11:35, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > --- Richard Huxton escreveu: > > > If it's practical to keep them, I'd like to suggest doing so. If it's > > not practical, could we have a where_to_find_old_versions.txt file > > and > > open a project on sourceforge to keep them? > > > What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? > > > Euler Taveira de Oliveira > euler[at]yahoo_com_br > > > > > > > > > ___ > Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage. > http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your >message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 11:35 schrieb Euler Taveira de Oliveira: > What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? That gave me a good laugh, but there is something to be said about moving all no longer supported releases (according to the criteria that are being discussed) to an unmirrored site, say, archive.postgresql.org. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
--- Richard Huxton escreveu: > If it's practical to keep them, I'd like to suggest doing so. If it's > not practical, could we have a where_to_find_old_versions.txt file > and > open a project on sourceforge to keep them? > What about an museum.postgresql.org to keep the old releases? Euler Taveira de Oliveira euler[at]yahoo_com_br ___ Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Robert Treat wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:33, Magnus Hagander wrote: Someone suggested earlier that we should drop the binaries for nonsupported versions completely from the ftp site. Thoughts on this? If not, they should at least go into OLD as well. But personally, I'm for dropping them completely. If you're on something that old (heck, we have 7.0 binaries..), you can still build from source. I'm against the idea... the cost for us is minimal, and the hassle involved in building from source is quite large. I don't have a need for an old PG binary. But when I have needed really old binaries it's always been in the middle of the night, in front of a machine with a teletype terminal, in the dark, surrounded by wolves while a timer ticks into the red... Locating the right versions of 17 different libraries and compiling from source is always my second choice. If it's practical to keep them, I'd like to suggest doing so. If it's not practical, could we have a where_to_find_old_versions.txt file and open a project on sourceforge to keep them? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:56:33PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Fetter wrote: > > >On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:23:38PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > >>On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote: > >>>Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while, > >>>because Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a > >>>long way away yet. The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 > >>>releases before that. But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long > >>>as the patches are in our CVS we may as well put out a release". > >> > >>Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official > >>policies on this type of thing. > > > >I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between > >what vendors support and what the community as a whole does, > >especially where individual community members wear another hat. > > So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for > v7.2, we'd refuse it? That depends on what you mean by "refuse." Such a patch wouldn't resurrect the original Postgres with POSTQUEL and cause us to support it, and it won't cause us to start supporting PostgreSQL 7.2 again either. That said, there's a backports project on pgfoundry. We could see about something like an "attic" project for such patches, etc. This way, the community doesn't get albatrosses draped over its neck, and the patches are available for those interested :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between what vendors support and what the community as a whole does, especially where individual community members wear another hat. So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for v7.2, we'd refuse it? I think not ... Oh but you should. The community has enough to worry about. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, David Fetter wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:23:38PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote: On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote: Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while, because Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a long way away yet. The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 releases before that. But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long as the patches are in our CVS we may as well put out a release". Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official policies on this type of thing. I see this as an excellent reason to draw a bright, sharp line between what vendors support and what the community as a whole does, especially where individual community members wear another hat. So, if Sun, SRA, Pervasive, Command Prompt, etc were to submit a patch for v7.2, we'd refuse it? I think not ... Will we accept/fix a bug report *for* v7.2, that is different ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:33, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Someone suggested earlier that we should drop the binaries for
> nonsupported versions completely from the ftp site. Thoughts on this?
>
> If not, they should at least go into OLD as well. But personally, I'm
> for dropping them completely. If you're on something that old (heck, we
> have 7.0 binaries..), you can still build from source.
>
I'm against the idea... the cost for us is minimal, and the hassle
involved in building from source is quite large.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
'k, moved it all into OLD as well ... haven't removed anything until more
opt in on this ... I do agree that if you really want that old, you can
build from scratch, but I'm also not the one that went to the trouble of
building the binaries :)
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Someone suggested earlier that we should drop the binaries for
nonsupported versions completely from the ftp site. Thoughts on this?
If not, they should at least go into OLD as well. But personally, I'm
for dropping them completely. If you're on something that old (heck, we
have 7.0 binaries..), you can still build from source.
Speaking of which, any reason not to drop the 8.1 beta win32 binaries?
//Magnus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:31 PM
To: Robert Treat
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Done, as well as moved all but the last two of each version after ...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote:
Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long
while, because
Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a
long way away yet.
The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 releases
before that.
But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long as the patches
are in our
CVS we may as well put out a release".
Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official
policies on this type of thing. If Sun decided they wanted to
maintain 7.2 and were going to dedicate developers and
testing for it,
would we really turn that away? OK, I don't really want to
have this
discussion again, but as of now I think we are all agreed
that 7.2 is unsupported.
We hashed all this out in the pghackers list back in August, but I
agree there ought to be something about it on the website.
We've been kicking it around but haven't moved much on this...
Marc, can you move the 7.2 branches in the FTP under the
OLD directory?
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
We need to do the same with 7.2 documentation, moving them into the
Manual Archive
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/archive.html.
We can also change the caption on the main documentation
page to note
these are manuals for the current supported versions.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of
broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
(http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy
ICQ: 7615664
---(end of
broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Someone suggested earlier that we should drop the binaries for
nonsupported versions completely from the ftp site. Thoughts on this?
If not, they should at least go into OLD as well. But personally, I'm
for dropping them completely. If you're on something that old (heck, we
have 7.0 binaries..), you can still build from source.
Speaking of which, any reason not to drop the 8.1 beta win32 binaries?
//Magnus
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:31 PM
> To: Robert Treat
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> Tom Lane; Andrew Dunstan
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
>
>
> Done, as well as moved all but the last two of each version after ...
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long
> while, because
> >> Red Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a
> long way away yet.
> >> The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 releases
> before that.
> >> But I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long as the patches
> are in our
> >> CVS we may as well put out a release".
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official
> > policies on this type of thing. If Sun decided they wanted to
> > maintain 7.2 and were going to dedicate developers and
> testing for it,
> > would we really turn that away? OK, I don't really want to
> have this
> > discussion again, but as of now I think we are all agreed
> that 7.2 is unsupported.
> >
> >> We hashed all this out in the pghackers list back in August, but I
> >> agree there ought to be something about it on the website.
> >>
> >
> > We've been kicking it around but haven't moved much on this...
> >
> > Marc, can you move the 7.2 branches in the FTP under the
> OLD directory?
> > http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
> >
> > We need to do the same with 7.2 documentation, moving them into the
> > Manual Archive
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/archive.html.
> > We can also change the caption on the main documentation
> page to note
> > these are manuals for the current supported versions.
> >
> > --
> > Robert Treat
> > Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> >
> > ---(end of
> > broadcast)---
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy
> ICQ: 7615664
>
> ---(end of
> broadcast)---
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>match
>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases
Done, as well as moved all but the last two of each version after ...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Robert Treat wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 11:40, Tom Lane wrote:
Personally I expect to keep supporting 7.3 for a long while, because Red
Hat pays me to ;-) ... and the EOL date for RHEL3 is a long way away yet.
The PG community may stop bothering with 7.3 releases before that. But
I think Marc and Bruce figure "as long as the patches are in our CVS we
may as well put out a release".
Yeah, thats one of the reasons I am skeptical about having official policies
on this type of thing. If Sun decided they wanted to maintain 7.2 and were
going to dedicate developers and testing for it, would we really turn that
away? OK, I don't really want to have this discussion again, but as of now I
think we are all agreed that 7.2 is unsupported.
We hashed all this out in the pghackers list back in August, but I agree
there ought to be something about it on the website.
We've been kicking it around but haven't moved much on this...
Marc, can you move the 7.2 branches in the FTP under the OLD directory?
http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/
We need to do the same with 7.2 documentation, moving them into the Manual
Archive http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/archive.html. We can also
change the caption on the main documentation page to note these are manuals
for the current supported versions.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
