Re: Huh? What is this?

On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 08:32 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I think we are. I thought you were talking about archives2.

We weren't.

> pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org

Ok. At the time I had zero clue what that was, but there have now been
emails on -www explaining what it is, so I now do know what itis.

> >> 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.
>
> Yes I am. Please fill in pmt with the appropriate policy.

Not a bad idea at all :-) Let me see if I can sell Stefan on it, since
he's the guy who's actually set up most of the procedures around it. The
actual procedures are fairly well documented, but not the policies.
Stefan, any chance? ;-)

> > But what you're basically saying is you want us to move all the stuff
> > off the linux boxes then, to be consistent?
>
> Funny. I almost laughed at that one. My point was the VM policy has
> never applied to Linux. We don't use VMs on linux (although I have never
> been sure why).

(that was kind of the intention, as I'm sure you realised)
Yeah, the why *is* a very good question. Let's have a serious discussion
about that at some point on IM or in mail (but not on this thread). We
really should try to do something about the situation there.

> > And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing
> > things before we do them?
> >
>
> No, I am not. I should have posted that we were going to add pgsqldocs.
> That is my bad.

Good we're in agreement there.

> > 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 did it and if you see my other post you will see that I verified that
> it was indeed already part of the system. So if there is still a problem
> receiving the auto backups we need to look at that specifically.

Agreed. Let me (or someone else on sysadmins) know if you need any help
digging into it. If not, I'll just assume you're on top of it :-)

//Magnus