pgsql-patches considered harmful

On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:

Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:

BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.

Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all
discussion on hackers.

Joshua D. Drake

--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Mon, 9 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:

Pursuant to a conversation this evening I would like to a suggestion:

BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.

My complaint is that -patches serves to

a) siphon off some of the most technical discussion from -hackers to somewhere
where fewer hackers read regularly leaving a lower signal-to-noise ratio on
-hackers.

b) partition the discussions in strange ways making it harder to carry on
coherent threads or check past discussions for conclusions.

c) encourages patches to sit in queues until a committer can review it rather
than have non-committers eyeballing it or even applying it locally and
using it before it's ready to be committed to HEAD.

The only defence I've heard for the existence of -patches is that it avoids
large attachments filling people's inboxes.

To that end I would suggest replacing it with a script on the mail server to
strip out attachments and replace them with a link to some place where they
can be downloaded.

This could conceivably evolve into some sort of simple patch queue system
where committers could view a list of patches and mark them when they get
rejected or committed. I'm not suggesting anything like a bug tracking system,
just a simple page should suffice.

I fear by sending this I may have just volunteered to execute it. But if it's
the case that people support my suggestion I would be happy to do so.

I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this
'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ...

Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is "the stripper", with the end
result forwarded over to the pgsql-hackers@ list?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:

BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.

Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all
discussion on hackers.

If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.

regards, tom lane

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 01:04:09AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I, for one, would be interested in something like that ... somehow, this
'stripping' would have to be done within Majordomo2 itself, or ...

Leave pgsql-patches@ as an alias that is "the stripper", with the end
result forwarded over to the pgsql-hackers@ list?

I have in the past had a script that took email, pushed the attachments
to disk and forwarded the email on. It's not spectacularly intelligent
though, but I was thinking it could be used as a sort of patch queue.

However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches
occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/

Show quoted text

From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:

However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches
occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there...

I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus
probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported
by majordomo.

However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers
*also*, not instead.

--Josh Berkus

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:00, Greg Stark wrote:

BIRT pgsql-patches should be abolished in favour of something else that
accomplishes the bandwidth-reduction aspect without the downsides.

Alternatively, people could just use patches for patch submission and keep all
discussion on hackers.

If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.

that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought up
before and alot of ppl were against that?

If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that
one both ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:

Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:

However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches
occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there...

I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus
probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported by
majordomo.

However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers *also*,
not instead.

You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam
filtering?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

Marc,

You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam filtering?

Many spam filters give points for "reply-to address does not match from
address".

--Josh

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Josh Berkus wrote:

Martjin, Greg, Marc, etc.:

However, I think the other suggestions of having the listbot mangle the
reply-tos of -patches and -committers to be -hackers would probably be
good too. I myself subscribe to -committers in digest form (where I
look at the summary to see if it's interesting) and read -patches
occasionally via the archives to see if anything is there...

I agree that mangling the reply-tos would be the least complex (and thus
probably best) solution. Unlike attachment stripping, this is supported by
majordomo.

However, to save on spam filtering, the reply-to should add -hackers *also*,
not instead.

You've lost me on that last point ... how does that save on spam
filtering?

He is saying that other mail servers might think our email is spam, but
I think the risk is worth it.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.

that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought
up before and alot of ppl were against that?

If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled
that one both ...

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.

that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought
up before and alot of ppl were against that?

If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled
that one both ...

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed to the patches list.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed to the patches list.

Depends on the MUA. See both sides of the debate here:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html . We use reply-to for
the pgfoundry admins list, but that's a closed list. For open lists that
often accept non-member posts it is much more of a problem, not least
for the reason you suggest.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed to the patches list.

Depends on the MUA. See both sides of the debate here:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html . We use reply-to for
the pgfoundry admins list, but that's a closed list. For open lists that
often accept non-member posts it is much more of a problem, not least
for the reason you suggest.

Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled that one
both ...

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things like
emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

Indeed. The usual issue is that if someone hits "personal reply" their
personal note to the author will go to the mailing list. Some lists have
problems with people sending personal replies inappropriately but I doubt
that's the case for -patches or -committers.

I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my
original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution.
The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within
the community.

Even if someone isn't going to read or apply the actual patch I think there is
an enormous benefit to be gained from having everyone at least know it went
by. Much as I'm sure not everyone reads every line of every message on
-hackers but they are aware of what topics are under discussion.

--
greg

* Greg Stark (gsstark@mit.edu) wrote:

I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of my
original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better solution.
The patches announcements themselves would still be basically invisible within
the community.

I'm with Greg on this one. I felt his original complaint made alot of
sense and this doesn't really deal with it. I'd much rather see
-patches go away or maybe become an alias to -hackers. If the patch is
too big then perhaps either compress it or provide a link to it when
it's submitted. If hosting for patches is an issue then perhaps provide
a way for patches to be hosted on a PG server. Honestly, I'd be happy
to put up any PG patches sent to me on a well connected server. I'm not
sure how easy it'd be to automate that though (and prevent
spammers/etc), but perhaps people have some suggestions?

Thanks,

Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped
of attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will
have both the attachment and follow-up posts for those that are
interested. Proof of concept below my sig.

--
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607111416
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

Weekly PostgreSQL patches summary:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00018.php
From: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Subject: [PATCHES] CREATE TRIGGER locking
Date: 2:25 AM on Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Last year, I questioned why CREATE TRIGGER acquires an
AccessExclusiveLock on its target table:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-03/msg00764.php

Acquiring an ExclusiveLock should be sufficient: we can safely allow
concurrent SELECTs on the table. (The -hackers thread discusses both
CREATE TRIGGER and ALTER TABLE ADD FK; the latter might require some
more consideration, so I'll tackle that later.)

This patch implements this change, and updates the documentation.

Barring any objections, I'll apply this in a day or two.

-Neil

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00021.php

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: [PATCHES] Draft patch for bug: ALTER TYPE ... USING(NULL) / NOT NULL violation
Date: 6:37 PM on Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Attached is a rather hurried patch for Alexander Pravking's report that
ALTER TABLE fails to check pre-existing NOT NULL constraints properly:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2006-07/msg00015.php

It seems to work but I'm out of time to do more with it, and am leaving
for Toronto in the morning. Anyone want to look it over, generate
back-patches as appropriate, and apply?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00031.php

From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Subject: [PATCHES] BTree tid operators and opclass
Date: 6:53 PM on Thursday, July 06, 2006

Here's a small patch to add the full suite of btree operators for tids and the
corresponding btree opclass. This came up a while back on -hackers and a few
people were interested in it at the time. I just had a need for it again so I
added it.

I'm not sure how to allocate OIDs. I just looked for the greatest one in the
various .h files and started from there. It leads to some strange
discontinuities since there were existing = and <> operators.

--
greg

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00035.php

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
Subject: [PATCHES] Win32 DEF file error
Date: 11:30 AM on Monday, July 10, 2006

The Win32 DEF files that are generated for libpq contain the attribute
"DESCRIPTION", which is actually only allowed for device drivers. The
compilers ignore it with a warning - if we remove them, we get rid of
the warning.

(ref
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore/
html/_core_description.asp)

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00037.php

From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Subject: [PATCHES] Minor ipv6/Win32 fix
Date: 7:42 PM on Monday, July 10, 2006

The attached patch reverses ws2tcpip.h and winsock2.h to avoid an
undefined symbol error when building under VC2k5.

Regards, Dave

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00038.php

From: James Gates <jim.gates@sun.com>
Subject: [PATCHES] Patch to "configure" to enable PostgreSQL build with Kerberos 5 on Solaris 11
Date: 7:50 PM on Monday, July 10, 2006

Included below are extracts from an earlier email thread (on
pgsql-ports) discussing the problem.

Attached are the context diffs for configure.in.

This change has no impact unless the "--with-krb5" option is used with
"configure". If the option *is* used, configure will now only search for
function krb5_sendauth(), instead of looking for both krb5_encrypt() and
krb5_sendauth().

I've tested (i.e. built using --with-krb5) with version 8.1.4 on Solaris
11 only. This change should have no negative impact for builds on other
platforms since:

a) The check for krb5_sendauth() remains, which is sufficient to
determine the presence of Kerberos 5

and

b) None of the PostgreSQL code uses krb5_encrypt() anyway

James Gates wrote:

Prior to Solaris 11 (Nevada), the full Kerberos 5 API was never exposed
(only the gss interface), so building PostgreSQL with the "--with-krb5"
option is a problem.

In Nevada, Sun has exposed the full MIT Kerberos 5 API (v1.4.0). So
building PostgreSQL with Kerberos should be possible/easy. If I try to
build 8.1.4 though, it fails with the following error:

$ ./configure --with-krb5 --without-readline
checking build system type... sparc-sun-solaris2.11
checking host system type... sparc-sun-solaris2.11
... snip ...
checking for library containing com_err... -lkrb5
checking for library containing krb5_encrypt... no
configure: error: could not find function 'krb5_encrypt' required for
Kerberos 5

This is because in krb5 v1.4.0, the krb5_encrypt() function is
deprecated/removed, so doesn't exist anywhere in the Solaris libraries.
It is replaced by krb5_c_encrypt() (I think this change occurred
sometime between krb5 v1.2.1 and v1.4.0)

But looking more closely at the PostgreSQL 8.1.4 code, I see that it
never even uses the krb5_encrypt() function anyway! So although it's
presence might be a useful method for detecting the presence of Kerberos
5 (pre v1.4.0), it seems unnecessary for the successful operation of
PostgreSQL.

By simply removing the check for krb5_encrypt() from the configure
script, I can successfully build PostgreSQL with krb5 on Nevada.

Does anyone know why the check for krb5_encrypt() exists in configure
when the code doesn't use it? And would absence of a good reason
indicate this is a bug (and the check should be removed)?

Tom Lane wrote:

James Gates <James.Gates@Sun.COM> writes:

Does anyone know why the check for krb5_encrypt() exists in configure
when the code doesn't use it?

At the time it was chosen, it was probably a reasonable choice of
function to probe for to make sure Kerberos libraries are present.
Do you have a better suggestion?

regards, tom lane

James Gates wrote:

The configure script already checks for krb5_sendauth() as well as
krb5_encrypt(). The libpq code *does* use krb5_sendauth(), which is not
deprecated (and I know of no plans to make it so).

I discussed this problem last night with Magnus Hagander, and we're both
of the opinion that the search for krb5_sendauth() alone is sufficient
to determine if krb5 is present on your system.

Magus suspects that at some point in the past, PostgreSQL did use
krb5_encrypt(), and it was changed (maybe in anticipation of the
function becoming deprecated?). Whoever made the change,
forgot/neglected to remove the check from the configure script.

I propose that we remove the check for krb5_encrypt() from the configure
script, leaving just the check for krb5_sendauth().

Note - krb5_encrypt() is replaced by krb5_c_encrypt() in the latest
implementation of krb5. We could change the configure script to check
for this as well, but as mentioned above, I think this is unnecessary.

$ runsocks cvs diff -c configure.in
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.467
diff -c -r1.467 configure.in
*** configure.in        18 Jun 2006 18:30:20 -0000      1.467
--- configure.in        10 Jul 2006 20:56:44 -0000
***************
*** 671,678 ****
    if test "$PORTNAME" != "win32"; then
       AC_SEARCH_LIBS(com_err, [krb5 'krb5 -ldes -lasn1 -lroken' com_err], [],
                      [AC_MSG_ERROR([could not find function 'com_err' required for Kerberos 5])])
-      AC_SEARCH_LIBS(krb5_encrypt, [krb5 'krb5 -ldes -lasn1 -lroken' crypto k5crypto], [],
-                     [AC_MSG_ERROR([could not find function 'krb5_encrypt' required for Kerberos 5])])
       AC_SEARCH_LIBS(krb5_sendauth, [krb5 'krb5 -ldes -lasn1 -lroken'], [],
                      [AC_MSG_ERROR([could not find function 'krb5_sendauth' required for Kerberos 5])])
    else
--- 671,676 ----

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-07/msg00039.php

From: "Charles Duffy" <charles.duffy@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCHES] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()
Date: 3:53 AM on Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Hi,

We came up with this patch in response to a problem reported to us by a
client. They had a query which took an unacceptably long time to respond
to a cancel request (SIGINT). The client uses 8.1.4, so the patch is
against that.

Their work_mem setting was rather large (1000000). We determined that when it
received SIGINT, the backend was always inside qsort(), so it wouldn't
call ProcessInterrupts() again until it finished this large in-memory
sort. Upon entering tuplesort_performsort(), state->memtupcount was
29247.

The patch puts a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup. This solves
their problem, at the cost of checking InterruptPending a lot. The
"unlikely()" gcc directive might help there a bit.

I'm not sure if this patch has general applicability - but it seems to
solve the problem for our client. Does anyone think it might introduce
any new problems?

Thanks,

--
Charles Duffy

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEs+0OvJuQZxSWSsgRAhJ9AKCBNzurWPdlG5u2U4OeXpB8rsWsMgCgmaqx
iCJyswtFr6OIULjXz0C8uGY=
=2ari
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Let's add the author and the hackers list to the reply-to.

I think reply-to is just a single address. It may work in some mailers though.

Regardless the issue is that someone may send a personal message and be
surprised when it's broadcast. You can always resent a message accidentally
sent personally but you can't unsend one that should not have seen wider
distribution.

--
greg

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.

that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought
up before and alot of ppl were against that?

If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled
that one both ...

Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.

If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
subscribed to the patches list.

The Reply-To: header is added to other heads ... in Pine, at least, I have
the option to honor, or disregard, the Reply-To ... I generally honor it,
but there is nothing stop'ng someone from disregarding it, and sending to
the original poster ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Greg Stark wrote:

I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually solve most of
my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to find a better
solution. The patches announcements themselves would still be basically
invisible within the community.

How do you deal with the case where someone posts a patch, but it isn't an
attachment? Its part of the actual text?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:28:31PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

One thing that came up in the discussion here was the idea of a
weekly (or other time period) digest of patches posts, stripped of
attachments, but with a link to the patches email, which will have
both the attachment and follow-up posts for those that are
interested. Proof of concept below my sig.

I've done a little bit of this in the form of short summaries in the
Weekly News, and I'd be delighted to do more of it. I'd need some
help, though :)

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

I have the additional complaint that this doesn't actually

solve most

of my original complaints and might reduce the pressure to

find a better solution.

The patches announcements themselves would still be basically
invisible within the community.

I'm with Greg on this one. I felt his original complaint
made alot of sense and this doesn't really deal with it. I'd
much rather see -patches go away or maybe become an alias to
-hackers. If the patch is too big then perhaps either
compress it or provide a link to it when it's submitted. If
hosting for patches is an issue then perhaps provide a way
for patches to be hosted on a PG server. Honestly, I'd be
happy to put up any PG patches sent to me on a well connected
server. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to automate that
though (and prevent spammers/etc), but perhaps people have
some suggestions?

There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?

If that was done, we could just have patches be sent to -hackers, and
get rid of -patches completely.

//Magnus

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:

There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?

Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has
had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here
interested in doing it?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:

There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?

Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has
had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here
interested in doing it?

Does it have to be perl ?

I can do it in python in an hour or two.

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org 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

--
----------------
Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia

Skype me: callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Hannu Krosing wrote:

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 23:04, kirjutas Marc G. Fournier:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Magnus Hagander wrote:

There are list servers out there capable of simply ripping any
attachments to a message (possibly over a certain size) and stick it on
a website, replacing it with a link in the email. Is majordomo one of
them?

Majordomo2 has a 'hook' for it, but, like most OSS software, nobody has
had the requirement to actually code it ... any perl experts here
interested in doing it?

Does it have to be perl ?

To tie into the list manager, it has to be perl, yes ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

All,

Several of us hashed this out at the Code Sprint. While the solution we
arrived at doesn't completely satisfy Greg, several others would be fine with
just having a version of pgsql-patches (pgsql-patches-lite?) that we could
subscribe to to get the messages without the attachments.

Also, Greg pointed out the need to post periodic summaries of what
features/patches had been committed. So I guess I'll have to start doing
that for PWN.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco