On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The COPYRIGHT file shows that VMware is claiming copyright on unstated
parts of the code for this. As such, its not a normal submission to
the PostgreSQL project, which involves placing copyright with the
PGDG.
Fwiw I
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:12:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
I'm not a lawyer and I make no judgement on how solid a practice this
is but that's VMware doesn't seem to be doing anything special here.
They can retain copyright ownership of their
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:12:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
The COPYRIGHT file shows that VMware is claiming copyright on unstated
parts of the code for this. As such, its not a normal submission to
the PostgreSQL
I'm not a lawyer and I make no judgement on how solid a practice this
is but that's VMware doesn't seem to be doing anything special here.
They can retain copyright ownership of their contributions as long as
they're happy releasing it under the Postgres copyright. Ideally they
wold also be
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'm not a lawyer and I make no judgement on how solid a practice this
is but that's VMware doesn't seem to be doing anything special here.
They can retain copyright ownership of their contributions as long as
they're happy
On 05/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Simon has a good point, as VMWare has asserted patents on some
changes to their version of Postgres in the past, so if the copyright
... which I'll point out that they *didn't* contribute, and which may
yet get resolved in a way that benefits
On 06/04/2013 01:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
That seems rather like a catch-22 Bruce. If they don't check with the
legal department, it's dangerous, but if they do check, it's dangerous?
Presumably if they checked with the legal department, it's cleared. We
should be wary of stuff contributed
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 01:55:27PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 05/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think Simon has a good point, as VMWare has asserted patents on some
changes to their version of Postgres in the past, so if the copyright
... which I'll point out that they *didn't*
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:48:24PM -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 23.05.2013 08:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 23 May 2013 12:10, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Please take a look: https://github.com/vmware/pg_rewind
The COPYRIGHT file shows that VMware is claiming
On 2013-05-28 14:32:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have a lot of code in PostgreSQL source tree with different
copyright notices, and there's no problem with that as long as the
coe is licensed under the PostgreSQL license. For patches that add
Really? Where? I think we have removed
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 08:37:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-05-28 14:32:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have a lot of code in PostgreSQL source tree with different
copyright notices, and there's no problem with that as long as the
coe is licensed under the PostgreSQL
On 2013-05-28 14:50:57 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 08:37:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2013-05-28 14:32:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We have a lot of code in PostgreSQL source tree with different
copyright notices, and there's no problem with that as long
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Oh, I see. Have we historically been OK with these as long as it is
clear it is the PG copyright? I know we had do some cleanups in the
past, but I don't remember the details, obviously.
We've had request from companies because they wanted to distribute
Postgres and
On May 28, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
We've had request from companies because they wanted to distribute
Postgres and lawyers weren't comfortable with copyright statements in
assorted files. In those cases we've asked the people mentioned in such
copyright statements, got
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:49:14PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Oh, I see. Have we historically been OK with these as long as it is
clear it is the PG copyright? I know we had do some cleanups in the
past, but I don't remember the details, obviously.
We've had
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:40 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hi,
I've been hacking on a tool to allow resynchronizing an old master
server after failover. The need to do a full backup/restore has been a
common complaint ever since we've had streaming replication. I saw on
the wiki that this
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
In a nutshell, the idea is to do copy everything that has changed
between the cluster, like rsync does, but instead of reading through all
files, use the WAL to determine what has changed. Here's a somewhat more
On 23 May 2013 10:03, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 23 May 2013 07:10, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Hi,
I've been hacking on a tool to allow resynchronizing an old master server
after failover. The need to do a full backup/restore has been a common
complaint ever
On 2013-05-24 10:57:22 -0400, Thom Brown wrote:
By the way, without any data inserted I get:
thom@swift /tmp $ pg_rewind --target-pgdata=/tmp/primary
--source-server='host=localhost port=5531 dbname=postgres' -v
connected to remote server
fetched file global/pg_control, length 8192
fetched
On 5/23/13 12:51 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
mailto:hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 23.05.2013 07:55, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
Hi,
I've been hacking on a tool to allow resynchronizing an old master
server after failover. The need to do a full backup/restore has been a
common complaint ever since we've had streaming replication. I saw on
the wiki that this was discussed in the dev meeting; too bad I couldn't
make it.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Scan the WAL log of the old cluster, starting from the point where
the new cluster's timeline history forked off from the old cluster. For each
WAL record, make a note of the data blocks that are touched. This
On 23 May 2013 12:10, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Please take a look: https://github.com/vmware/pg_rewind
The COPYRIGHT file shows that VMware is claiming copyright on unstated
parts of the code for this. As such, its not a normal submission to
the PostgreSQL project,
On 23 May 2013 07:10, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Hi,
I've been hacking on a tool to allow resynchronizing an old master server
after failover. The need to do a full backup/restore has been a common
complaint ever since we've had streaming replication. I saw on the wiki
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Scan the WAL log of the old cluster, starting from the point where
the new cluster's timeline history forked off from the old cluster.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Scan the WAL log of the old cluster, starting from the
On 23.05.2013 07:55, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Scan the WAL log of the old cluster, starting from the point where
the new cluster's timeline history forked off from the old cluster. For each
WAL record, make a note
On 23.05.2013 08:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 23 May 2013 12:10, Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Please take a look: https://github.com/vmware/pg_rewind
The COPYRIGHT file shows that VMware is claiming copyright on unstated
parts of the code for this. As such, its not a normal
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 23.05.2013 07:55, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
1. Scan the WAL log of the old cluster, starting from the point where
the new
29 matches
Mail list logo
