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

Re: Updated instrumentation patch

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch
Date: 2005-07-30 16:10:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
> > Once we have a "real remote admin API", it becomes an 
> argument, and it 
> > will have to be adjusted. But we don't have that today, and 
> I see no 
> > need to create a new guc category just for this. After all, some of 
> > these functions will probably go away completely once we 
> have such an 
> > API.
> None of these functions are getting into 8.1 anyway; we 
> should be designing the long-term solution not making up 
> short-lived hacks.

I'm sorry, but then why the **** did my question:

> And finally, with something like that in place, would you be fine with
> the file editing functions as they stand (limiting them to the pg
> directories, as I believe it does)?

get the answer:
> I'm OK with them even without the directory limitation as long as
> there's a way to disable them. 

If you had just said from the start that these functions would not be
accepted even if the specific concerns raised were fixed, a lot of time
invested by a lot of people would not have been necessary.

I guess I just join the rank of people giving up on this. Too bad for
the people who want to be able to remotely admin their stuff, because I
now think everybody who actually cared have given up.


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-07-30 16:45:15
Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-07-30 16:06:11
Subject: Re: P.tch to mention cost-based delay in vacuum reference

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group