Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Updated instrumentation patch

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-07-30 16:45:15
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4850789@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Tom Lane
Sent: Sat 7/30/2005 4:58 PM
To: Magnus Hagander
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Updated instrumentation patch 
 
> None of these functions are getting into 8.1 anyway; we should be
> designing the long-term solution not making up short-lived hacks.

So, going back to pre 8.0, we fixed them so they don't work outside of the data directory as requested, yet they were not included for unknown reasons.

We revisited some weeks before prior to feature freeze, and I researched all issues raised and ask for clarification on what you weren't happy with as all I'd found in the archives was a sentence along the lines of "I really don't see any value in these". I found no outstanding issues in the archives, nor did I receive any in response to my questions.

Having received no further objections, the patch was added to the queue. As soon as Bruce starts to look at it, presumably to apply it, you decide it's an unnacceptable security problem, and say you'd be perfectly happy if there was a GUC to disable the potentially dangerous functions. This info would have been nice before feature freeze, but, OK, I appreciate you're busy.

Magnus updates the patch because he's yet another one of us that thinks this is useful functionality and adds the GUC you said would make you happy with these functions.

You then state, with no discussion at all, that they're not going into 8.1 anyway, despite us doing everything you have asked.

I have two questions if I may:

1) Is there any point us working on any kind of enhanced API for remote admin in the future, or will the same treatment be given to that?

2) Do you now have sole say over what does and doesn't go into the project?

I don't mean to be disrespectful - your hard work and skills are hugely appreciated by the whole community, but I know for a fact that a number of them, who between them have contributed thousands of hours and lines of code to the project (and I'm talking about the core project, never mind pgAdmin et al) cannot understand your apparent insistence on us not providing remote admin capabilities. I think we simply need clarification on how the project works these days.

Regards, Dave



Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-07-30 16:51:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-30 15:17:03
Subject: Re: Implement support for TCP_KEEPCNT, TCP_KEEPIDLE, TCP_KEEPINTVL

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-07-30 16:51:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2005-07-30 16:10:35
Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group