Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something
cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more
effort.
At 2006-09-05 05:47:58 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that difficulty no longer exists now that Abhijit has posted his
clean-room rewrite (look for otherlock in -patches). Perhaps he
would be prepared to turn that into a patch against the core...
Absolutely. Just tell me where it should live
On 9/5/06, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation ---
but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks
docs presumably fall under GPL along with
At 2006-09-07 00:16:38 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Where would the code live, if it were in core?
- Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?
are we still moving forward with this? I would love to see this go in
for 8.2.
I don't know about its going into 8.2 or
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Migrated to pgFoundry:
adddepends (Greg)
dbmirror (Steve Singer)
dbase -- dbf2pg
fulltextindex -- simplefti
mac (LER) -- mac-manufacturer
userlock (Merlin)
Please also kill the following two contrib
Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a
previous let's clean up contrib/ thread.
Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for
taking the opportunity to redesign the API, which was a bit crufty
At 2006-09-05 10:23:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for
taking the opportunity to redesign the API, which was a bit crufty to
begin with.
I'm happy to do the work right away (not that there's much) if someone
suggests a better
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a
previous let's clean up contrib/ thread.
Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for
taking the opportunity to redesign the
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago.
Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do
anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation.
However, as I said, I'd really rather choose a new API altogether. The
Andrew,
It seems odd to remove the module from contrib for 8.2 and then put a
replacement in core for 8.3. I guess we could signal our intentions in
the release notes.
The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed.
--Josh
---(end of
Tom,
Checking my copy of the hit list, I thought we'd agreed to migrate
contrib/oracle as well.
Hmmm ... somehow that got dropped out of discussions early on, without
any reason why. See the more nuclear options thread; oracle is
nowhere on it.
Will only take me 30 min to migrate, but we
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Checking my copy of the hit list, I thought we'd agreed to migrate
contrib/oracle as well.
Hmmm ... somehow that got dropped out of discussions early on, without
any reason why.
Actually ... never mind that, it seems to have been done already.
Sorry for
On 9/5/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago.
Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do
anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation.
yes, userlocks have to be
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
term due to the gpl issue, although I am
On 2006-09-05, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago.
Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do
anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation.
However, as I said,
On 9/5/06, Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote:
The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed.
Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in,
BSD-licensed replacement for the current code.
does his patch
Merlin,
The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed.
Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in,
BSD-licensed replacement for the current code.
does his patch include documentation? I can help with that if it isn't
done. was it reviewed?
No, and no.
Tom Lane wrote:
Checking my copy of the hit list, I thought we'd agreed to migrate
contrib/oracle as well.
It has already been removed because it is being actively maintained
elsewhere.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of
On 9/5/06, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote:
So userlocks will be in pgFoundry for the next rev -- frankly, it should
have been for 8.1 but I forgot it. For the 8.3 version, as Tom has
indicated we may want to change the API somewhat anyway, so we'll want the
pgFoundry version for
Merlin,
well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be
sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question.
You're correct, he did. Tom?
If that's the
case I'm considering putting something together quickly. It's no big
deal to me either way really. However, it
On 2006-09-05, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/5/06, Andrew - Supernews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote:
The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed.
Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in,
Tom Lane wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
term due to the gpl
On 2006-09-05, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility
thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to
put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if
someone will do the legwork to define
On 9/5/06, Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
I have no objection from them being
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Merlin,
well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be
sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question.
You're correct, he did. Tom?
Well, it's not like we're done with forced initdb's for 8.2, so I don't
particularly see the
On 2006-09-05, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can
copyright a function wrapper.
I made this point several times in the original discussion (which was a
year
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes:
Overall, though, I think we should really wait until 8.3 for core merge and
API improvements. Wasn't Tom just complaining about last-minute features,
and not enough code reviewers?
He may have worked through enough of the backlog that he's ready to
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation ---
but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks
docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code.
I'll write the documentation, either for the
Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fine with me. Two questions:
- Where would the code live, if it were in core?
New file under utils/adt/ probably ... it's not a new datatype exactly,
but that's the default place for new SQL-visible functions.
- Shall I hack up the API you
Bruce,
After some delay with server issues, I've loaded these contrib modules. Since
I'm not hip to the magic required to remove a directory safely in CVS, please
do it for me?
Migrated to pgFoundry:
adddepends (Greg)
dbmirror (Steve Singer)
dbase -- dbf2pg
On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote:
Migrated to pgFoundry:
[...]
userlock (Merlin)
Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a
previous let's clean up contrib/ thread. If it's not going into core
in 8.2 then it needs to stay in contrib.
31 matches
Mail list logo
