Problem with moderation of messages with patched attached.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:31 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, hackers!

Around 2 months ago I've noticed a problem that messages containing
patches in the thread [1] were always processed with manual moderation.
They appear in hackers' thread hours after posting None of them are from
new CF members and personally, I don't see a reason for such inconvenience.
The problem still exists as of today.

Can someone make changes in a moderation engine to make it more liberal
and convenient for authors?

[1]
/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com&gt;

Confirm

--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.

Hi hackers,

Confirm

Here are my two cents.

My last email to pgsql-jobs@ was moderated in a similar fashion. To my
knowledge that mailing list is not pre-moderated. So it may have the same
problem, and not only with patches. (We use regular Google Workspace.)

The pgsql-hackers@ thread under question seems to have two mailing list
addresses in cc:. Maybe this is the reason [1]https://www.postgresql.org/list/:

Cross-posted emails will be moderated and therefore will also take longer

to reach the subscribers if approved.

Although it's strange that only emails with attachments seem to be affected.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/list/

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Hi

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 12:31, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, hackers!

Around 2 months ago I've noticed a problem that messages containing
patches in the thread [1] were always processed with manual moderation.
They appear in hackers' thread hours after posting None of them are from
new CF members and personally, I don't see a reason for such inconvenience.
The problem still exists as of today.

Can someone make changes in a moderation engine to make it more liberal
and convenient for authors?

[1]
/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com

Here's the moderation reason for that message:

Message to list pgsql-hackers held for moderation due to 'Size 1MB (1061796
bytes) is larger than threshold 1000KB (1024000 bytes)', notice queued for
2 moderators

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Message to list pgsql-hackers held for moderation due to 'Size 1MB
(1061796 bytes) is larger than threshold 1000KB (1024000 bytes)', notice
queued for 2 moderators

Could you make this limit 2MB at least for authorized commitfest members?
Thanks!

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com&gt;

Hi Dave,

Message to list pgsql-hackers held for moderation due to 'Size 1MB (1061796 bytes) is larger than threshold 1000KB (1024000 bytes)', notice queued for 2 moderators

Thanks! Does anyone know if cfbot understands .patch.gz and/or .tgz ?

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:22, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

Message to list pgsql-hackers held for moderation due to 'Size 1MB

(1061796 bytes) is larger than threshold 1000KB (1024000 bytes)', notice
queued for 2 moderators

Could you make this limit 2MB at least for authorized commitfest members?
Thanks!

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1]/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com, seems weird.

[1]: /messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com
/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com&gt;

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:24:03PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:

Thanks! Does anyone know if cfbot understands .patch.gz and/or .tgz ?

There's a FAQ link on the cfbot main page that answers this kind of questions.

There's a FAQ link on the cfbot main page that answers this kind of
questions.

Good to know! I'll try [.gz] next time then.

Thanks!

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I'll ping a message across to the sysadmin team anyway; I can't just change
that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi Dave,

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate -hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I'll ping a message across to the sysadmin team anyway; I can't just change that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.

IMO, current limits are OK. The actual problem is that when the
message gets into moderation, the notice to the author doesn't contain
the reason:

Your message to pgsql-hackers with subject
"Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15"
has been held for moderation.

It will be delivered to the list recipients as soon as it has been
approved by a moderator.

If you wish to cancel the message without delivery, please click
this link: ....

Any chance we could include the reason in the message? I foresee that
otherwise such kinds of questions will be asked over and over again.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 01:37:35PM +0000, Dave Page wrote:

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

It's not common, most people send compressed versions.

Also, gigantic patchsets tend to be hard to maintain and rot pretty fast, so
authors also sometimes maintain a branch on some external repository and just
send newer versions on the ML infrequently.

Hi again,

Any chance we could include the reason in the message? I foresee that
otherwise such kinds of questions will be asked over and over again.

A link to the list of common reasons should work too.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

Hi, Dave!
Authors in the mentioned thread [1]/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com bump into this issue while posting all
11 versions of a patchset. It is little bit more than 1MB. We can try to
use .gz and if this doesn't work we report it again.

I'll ping a message across to the sysadmin team anyway; I can't just change

that setting without buy-in from the rest of the team.

Thanks! Maybe this will solve the issue.

[1]: /messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com
/messages/by-id/CACG=ezZe1NQSCnfHOr78AtAZxJZeCvxrts0ygrxYwe=pyyjVWA@mail.gmail.com

--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov

Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com&gt;

Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> writes:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone?

Maybe your patch needs to be split up? You're going to have a hard time
finding people who want to review or commit such large chunks.

regards, tom lane

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 10:17:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> writes:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation
rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone?

Maybe your patch needs to be split up? You're going to have a hard time
finding people who want to review or commit such large chunks.

I think it's the total attachment size, not a single file. So while splitting
up the patchset even more would still be a good idea, compressing the files
before sending them to hundred of people would be an even better one.

Greetings,

* Aleksander Alekseev (aleksander@timescale.com) wrote:

My last email to pgsql-jobs@ was moderated in a similar fashion. To my
knowledge that mailing list is not pre-moderated. So it may have the same
problem, and not only with patches. (We use regular Google Workspace.)

-jobs is moderated.

Thanks,

Stephen

Greetings,

* Pavel Borisov (pashkin.elfe@gmail.com) wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I do pay attention to -hackers and no, it doesn't come up very often.

Authors in the mentioned thread [1] bump into this issue while posting all
11 versions of a patchset. It is little bit more than 1MB. We can try to
use .gz and if this doesn't work we report it again.

This patch set really shoudl be broken down into smaller independent
pieces that attack different parts and not be all one big series of
patches.

Thanks,

Stephen

Hi,

On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when
I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for
reviewers.

It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes
and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't
help anymore.

And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email
seems pretty low these days.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote:

Hi,

On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are messages
legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually moderate
-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches when
I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with for
reviewers.

It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance changes
and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing won't
help anymore.

And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole email
seems pretty low these days.

Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

оf course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.

Thanks, Andrew! I think it will be more comfortable now.

Pavel.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 at 13:52, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 3/19/22 14:48, Andres Freund wrote:

Hi,

On 2022-03-03 13:37:35 +0000, Dave Page wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 13:28, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>

wrote:

The mail system doesn't have the capability to apply different

moderation

rules for people in that way I'm afraid.

Maybe then 2MB for everyone? Otherwise it's not so convenient. Lead to
answers before the questions in the thread [1], seems weird.

Then someone will complain if their patch is 2.1MB! How often are

messages

legitimately over 1MB anyway, even with a patch? I don't usually

moderate

-hackers, so I don't know if this is a common thing or not.

I don't think it's actually that rare. But most contributors writing that
large patchsets know about the limit and work around it - I gzip patches

when

I see the email getting too large. But it's more annoying to work with

for

reviewers.

It's somewhat annoying. If you e.g. append a few graphs of performance

changes

and a patch it's pretty easy to get into the range where compressing

won't

help anymore.

And sure, any limit may be hit by somebody. But 1MB across the whole

email

seems pretty low these days.

Of course we could get complaints no matter what level we set the limit
at. I think raising it to 2Mb would be a reasonable experiment. If no
observable evil ensues then leave it that way. If it does then roll it
back. I agree that plain uncompressed patches are easier to deal with in
general.

Thanks for the reminder :-)

I've bumped the limit to 2MB.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com