Re: Huh? What is this?

On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team,
> > but for reference:
> > https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478
>
>
> >
> > What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given
> > that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery
>
> It was a test site for the scripts that we had from Marc.

Are we really talking about the same thing? What does the user
"pgsqldocs" have to do with the archives - is it misnamed? Assuming
those are the scripts you got from Marc - or are you talking about yet
another thing here?

> > We normally discuss things before we add new services to machines, don't
> > we? Especially when it's a box that shares data with some of our most
> > vital services, like archives. Also, our current policy is to as much as
> > possible *isolate* services using VM technology - this is especially
> > important for such critical services.
>
> Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to
> Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please.

I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that.
But what you're basically saying is you want us to move all the stuff
off the linux boxes then, to be consistent?

(there's still the "as much as possible" part, but if we're willing to
modify stuff we already have out there, we could certainly make more
moves towards that)

And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing
things before we do them?

> > Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I
> > assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache
> > configuration isn't in the automatic backup.
>
> You know.. instead of complaining you simply could have added it
> yourself and said, "BTW... this was overlooked".

I didn't install it, so I don't know *what* to put in there. The person
who installed it would know what's actually involved in it, and should
add those files.

I'm not saying I've never missed doing that myself, certainly, but I
think the only thing that makes sense is that whomever made the changes
need to document them, since others don't actually know what's involved.

> > BTW, the docs also says that postgresqlconference.org is only supposed
> > to be there temporarily during reprovisioning - is that still so, or
> > should the documentation be fixed wrt that?
> >
>
> It is temporary. We are pushing a bunch of hardware around. It will be
> moved after EAST.
>

Ok - just checking that the plans hadn't changed on that one.

//Magnus