Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 19:47, Luz Violeta wrote: > And that's the foundation on > which the CoC is being written. I saw the CoC go down, down, and down in > content and quality, not taking stances for nothing and falling into > generalizations. As I understand it the main

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:53:28PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > > While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do > with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project. > > All you have to do is to check it out. > > As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote: Hi David ! I totally share your toughts. I was following the whole CoC discussion, and as a transgender woman found myself with a lot of sadness. Because what happened in that discussion, happens in some other projects that I liked technically and used

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

Oliver Elphick wrote: > (Replying to the digest post) > > Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project > would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been > conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix > it. FWIW, I agree that we don't

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016 23:59, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > > >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. > > > > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

Geoff, Are you a woman of color of Black descent? You seem to have the same exact opinions that I do. How can that be? Thanks, Regina -Original Message- From: Geoff Winkless [mailto:pgsqlad...@geoff.dj] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 2:06 PM To: Postgres General

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 07:05:49PM +, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Postgres developers believe that it's not their job to implement > social justice, and instead decided to implement what they believe to > be an acceptable compromise. In fact, they decided to implement PostgreSQL - and I cannot

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote: > It's sad, because all those who participated in the discussion were people > that are not exposed to the experiences we live (and by that, I mean > everyone not fitting in the hegemony of that white guy in the IT industry), > and by

[GENERAL] 9.5 new features

(sorry to interrupt the discussion on CoC's and social justice, but...) one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything specific ?do BRIN's play into partitioned tables ? in our case, we partition

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:47:43PM -0300, Luz Violeta wrote: > P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the > mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and > say something, dunno. Not that I've got much to say around here ;-) but,

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

Hello, I do not intervene much on the list and am not an english native speaker, but here are some thoughts : It seems to me that it is very hard to find good words (which should find their way in other languages) to summarize what is a decent conduct in an open source project. Don't we all (or

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

(Replying to the digest post) Having watched this discussion from the start, I think the project would be better off without any CoC.  The list has always been conducted well and if something isn't broken you shouldn't try to fix it. -- Oliver Elphick Lincolnshire, England -- Sent via

Re: [GENERAL] long transfer time for binary data

Am 21.01.2016 um 08:44 schrieb George Neuner: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:29:07 +0100, Johannes wrote: > >> I noticed transferring a large object or bytea data between client and >> server takes a long time. >> For example: An image with a real size of 11 MB could be read on server

Re: [GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

On 01/22/2016 10:05 AM, ivo silvestre wrote: Hi, I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read access. I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL from a table in MS SQL in another

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > > > They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots. > > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the CoC

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 19:37, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely >> statements like that would violate *both* the contributor

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016 23:00, "David E. Wheeler" wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues > >> they’ve had there in the past. > > > > When and whom?

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 1/22/2016 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, David E. Wheeler > wrote: They are in fact both unreconstructed bigots. Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely statements

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:25:58 -0800 Adrian Klaver wrote: > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up > either directly or through someone else. In doing so though I would > expect verifiable information. Maybe they can't. Imagine for a

[GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

Hi, I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read access. I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL from a table in MS SQL in another server. The table in the MS SQL is constantly

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote: > Any process or change is perfected over course of time.. The current CoC may > not be perfect but time will make it. It is better than none, I’ll grant you, but it could be SOOO much better right now. > Ideas can

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you off-list. On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 22,

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 11:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: I'm copying this (which I sent to you individually) back into the group because you clearly don't score enough troll points to make it worth your while answering my questions when I send it to you off-list. On 22 January 2016 at 17:21, David E.

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely > statements like that would violate *both* the contributor

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: >> BTW, I am one of those “through someone else” people of which you speak. > > Excellent! Then can you ask the person for whom you are "someone else" > to explain exactly which parts of the projected CoC are unacceptable?

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote: > Again sorry for cutting thread. I just get the digest. No worries. :-) > Ruby is under heavy threat to adopt this, but they have not yet to my > knowledge. Here is the thread: Threat? > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 1/22/2016 9:43 AM, Regina Obe wrote: Reading the thread requires a lot of attention and also face recognition. So I shall point out the actors and actresses in this conversation you should pay close attention to: ohgood(diety-of-choice). This could be made into a soap opera and run

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Regardless whether it's true or not (to which I cannot speak), surely > statements like that would violate *both* the contributor covenant *and* the > CoC suggested by others. It may well violate the Contributor

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc. Whilst we have been lucky so far. Unfortunately people behave differently when writing emails. This is because over 50% of our interactions are through body language and we don't see each other face to face. We don't really know each

Re: Fwd: Re: [GENERAL] Variable not found

Hi, > > On 01/20/2016 07:35 PM, Sachin Srivastava wrote: > > Dear Folks, > > I have a question about global variables in Oracle pl/sql package. > Where > are these variables when package is converted to schema from Oracle to > Postgres through Ora2PG Tool? > Ora2Pg doesn't

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 05:25, David E. Wheeler wrote: > I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this > document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to > benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I

Re: [GENERAL] Auotmated postgres failover

Le Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:34:18 -0800, John R Pierce a écrit : > On 1/21/2016 11:07 AM, jwienc...@comcast.net wrote: > > > > > > I'm looking for a tool to automate PostgreSQL cluster management > > failover in the event the master database were to become unavailable. > >

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote: > P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first mail to the > mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope made me come forward and > say something, dunno. Thank you so much for doing so. Up to

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote: > Speaking up is a privilege often reserved for the in crowd and the > revolutionary. +1000 David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 1/22/2016 2:57 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best regards, A Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:32:10PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > that we do not attempt to "roll our own". Or at the very least, we should > strive to understand how other communities arrived at their Codes and > why it is working for them. This is why I posted all that stuff about what

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Luz Violeta wrote: > >> P.S → even now, I'm kinda terrified of a shitstorm in my first >> mail to the mailing list ... but definitely this spark of hope >>

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 David E. Wheeler wrote: (...good rebuttals to specific points of the proposed Code of Conduct.. > This document sounds like something written by well-meaning folks who don�t > want to be misunderstood. There is a lot here to let violators

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 03:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: This is why I posted all that stuff about what the IETF does some while ago. There is definitely more than one way to do this. Best regards, A Just a gut feeling, but I think this thread had driven the rest of the regulars to drink at a bar

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

David et. Al, Sorry for top-posting but it's late, and I'm using lame outlook. I haven't said anything recently, because I decided to open a bag of popcorn and enjoy the Coc debate. If you read my earlier posts, you should know that I am vehemently against anything that sounds like

Re: [GENERAL] BDR with postgres 9.5

On 22 January 2016 at 04:24, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > > On 01/20/2016 11:41 AM, Nikhil wrote: > >> Hello All, > >> > >> > >> What is the timeline for BDR with postgres 9.5 released version. > > > >

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rajeev Bhatta wrote: Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by anything is inappropriate. +1 -- Command Prompt, Inc.

Re: [GENERAL] adding a bdr node using bcv backup

On 21 January 2016 at 20:46, (Daniel Stolf) wrote: > So here's what I don't get: > > 1) if I have to create a new replication slots on node1 and 2 beforehand > using "pg_create_physical_replication_slot" , don't they need the if of > node3 on their name? > You need to create

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 10:47, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc. I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled to

Re: [GENERAL] Building PostgreSQL 9.6devel sources with Microsoft Visual C++ 2015?

Please look at the new patch. It is filled with black magic, but it looks still more true. He agreed with the internal API. -- Yury Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/port/chklocale.c b/src/port/chklocale.c index

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

>Farjad wrote >A number of contributors have asked why we should have Coc. >>Geoff wrote >>I'm not sure that that's true. Several have said that they don't believe that >>we should, but that's not the same thing. Everyone is entitled >>to their opinion. I don't think we should have one. I'm

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 12:08, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > > But Geoff, Without knowing what problems people are facing in their > businesses no product will ever stay relevant to end users for long. Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

>Geoff wrote >> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper. You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an input. Just yours. WOW! Then I suggest put it in Coc. -Original Message- From: gwinkl...@gmail.com

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and > what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already > present. Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

Frankly, Can we create another COC (Code of Content) for this specific list? My mailbox is full of non-technical (in my opinion) CoC discussions. Which I grow tired of. And to add to this completely impossible COC solution; in my life I've constantly BEEN offended. I've been offended

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already present. Regina linked to some shitstorms

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open >> for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying >> someone by anything is inappropriate. > > +1 The fact that it was

Re: [GENERAL] Strange/Correct? behavior of SELECT FOR UPDATE

On 01/22/2016 01:41 AM, david.tu...@linuxbox.cz wrote: Hi, we have some question about behavior SELECT FOR UPDATE. We want find record with open bounds tstzrange, close it a insert new open. We use SELECT FOR UPDATE in function, but sometimes 2rows inserted. I show this on simple example with

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Regina Obe wrote: > I am especially disgusted by the people behind > http://contributor-covenant.org. They have done nothing but to silence the > voices of minorities. That's being kind to them. Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled, but

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 09:08 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Additionally the CoC emails were sent to the entire group so it was open for all. I did not read the remainder of the email as classifying someone by anything is

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive >> discussion. > > To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be > subject to it had an opportunity to comment,

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 09:21 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: The fact that it was “open for all” does not mean that it was an inclusive discussion. To the extent that everybody that participates in the list and would be

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

No one has suggested you are a bad person. The world is changing towards smaller more agile companies. For postgresql to survive it needs to be at the forefront of the wave. It is difficult for everyone to cope with so many changes. You are part of the team and a good contributor. So let's

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 13:09, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: >>Geoff wrote >>> Then end users will move on, or get involved. That's also right and proper. > You rather see postgresql ,as a product, die but you want to no one have an > input. Just yours. Now I'm being

Re: [GENERAL] Variable not found

On 01/21/2016 10:48 PM, Sachin Srivastava wrote: Dear Adrian, So, how the effective way to search this because I have around 1300 tables. See Gilles response. From that I gather global variables are not automatically transferred and it is up to you to decide where to put them. Per your

[GENERAL] Re: 回复： [GENERAL] about test_parser installation failure problem(PostgreSQL in 9.5.0)？

On 01/21/2016 11:55 PM, 閬閬イふ wrote: Ccing list, not because I have an answer, but to put it front of folks that might. thank you postgresql! create EXTENSION zhparser Solved.beacause the config file is utf8 + bom，change file encoding ok but query in pgAdmin III noresult,pgsql say:

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 02:51:24PM -, FarjadFarid(ChkNet) wrote: > The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or > software industry. > The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software > is concerned. > > All the predictions are

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

Geoff, The number of job losses around the world is huge. From mining to retail or software industry. The writings is on the wall for large co-operates, especially where software is concerned. All the predictions are pointing to greater success for smaller more nibble companies. I

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

> While the above is maybe true or maybe not it got nothing directly to do with PostgreSQL-the-OSS-project. All you have to do is to check it out. As to its relevance. It comes down to listening to everyone's needs. Identifying next major requirements and implementing it before the

[GENERAL] Strange/Correct? behavior of SELECT FOR UPDATE

Hi, we have some question about behavior SELECT FOR UPDATE. We want find record with open bounds tstzrange, close it a insert new open. We use SELECT FOR UPDATE in function, but sometimes 2rows inserted. I show this on simple example with integer data type. Here is: --tested on postgresql

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: >> It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues >> they’ve had there in the past. > > When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to speak up either > directly or through

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 09:30 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: It excludes people who don’t participate in the list because of issues they’ve had there in the past. When and whom? This is the time for those that had issues to

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

David, Again sorry for cutting thread. I just get the digest. >> I am especially disgusted by the people behind >> http://contributor-covenant.org. They have done nothing but to silence the >> voices of minorities. That's being kind to them. > Interesting. Got a link for context? I Googled,

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 22 January 2016 at 17:30, David E. Wheeler wrote: > The way to involve a broader audience is to solicit feedback from outside the > immediate confines of a single mail list. Or even the community itself. > People have left the community because of issues; how do you

Re: [GENERAL] 9.5 new features

On 23 January 2016 at 09:49, John R Pierce wrote: > one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in > partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything specific > ?do BRIN's play into partitioned tables ? > > in our case, we

Re: [GENERAL] 9.5 new features

On 1/22/2016 7:13 PM, David Rowley wrote: On 23 January 2016 at 09:49, John R Pierce wrote: >one of my coworkers says he thought that 9.5 has some enhancements in >partitioning, but looking at the release notes I don't see anything specific >?do BRIN's play into

Re: [GENERAL] Connecting to SQL Server from Windows using FDW

On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:05 PM, ivo silvestre wrote: > I need to create a linked server between 2 Windows servers. In one I've > PostgreSQL with admin privileges and in the other MS SQL with only read > access. > > I need to create a view (or a foreign table?) in PostgreSQL

Re: [GENERAL] long transfer time for binary data

Johannes wrote: > psql > select lo_get(12345); > +ssl -compression 6.0 sec > -ssl 4.4 sec psql requests results in text format so that SELECT does not really test the transfer of binary data. With bytea_output to 'hex', contents are inflated by 2x. Can you tell how fast

Re: [GENERAL] Let's Do the CoC Right

On 01/22/2016 03:31 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one can argue by another

Re: [GENERAL] CoC [Final]

On 01/21/2016 12:40 PM, Steve Litt wrote: "Disruption of the collaborative space" is almost meaningless, and almost guarantees selective enforcement. On the other hand, "patterns of behaviour which the majority of the core team consider to be harassment" is crystal clear. What would happen if

[GENERAL] CoC [Final v2]

Hello, I have been in Pasadena the last few days and wasn't able to respond. I believe we are very close to finishing this up. Based on the comments I have seen in the previous CoC [Final] thread, I have come up with the following: == PostgreSQL Community Code of Conduct (CoC) == This