Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases

2005-12-03 Thread Kevin Brown
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

2005-12-01 Thread Richard Huxton

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

2005-12-01 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
--- Richard Huxton dev@archonet.com 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

2005-12-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

2005-12-01 Thread Csaba Nagy
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 dev@archonet.com 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

2005-12-01 Thread Richard Huxton

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

2005-12-01 Thread Marc G. Fournier

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

2005-12-01 Thread Dave Page
 

 -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

2005-12-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan



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

2005-12-01 Thread Magnus Hagander
  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

2005-11-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier


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


Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases

2005-11-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

2005-11-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier


'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

2005-11-30 Thread Robert Treat
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

2005-11-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier

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

2005-11-30 Thread Joshua D. Drake




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

2005-11-30 Thread David Fetter
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