Re: Server instrumentation patch

Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > Basically, Andreas' approach for 8.0 was to develop a patch (without
> > posting a proposal or interface), and then argue why pgadmin needs it,
> > but without addressing the real concerns about the patch.
>
> Extending the logging was to get a means of reading the log file without
> console access, with *any* client.
> The proposal to develop the generic file functions came from a Mr Bruce
> Momjian.

Yes, you are right I helped with the initial file stuff, but not with
the terminate nor the dbsize. I can't remember if I got involved before
or after the initial patch, so you are right.

> > Saying
> > pgadmin needs it just isn't enough to get a patch in.
>
> Never said that. It's needed by dbadmins without console access.

Needed and having it added are different issues. As I remember there
were security concerns about having the backend able to read/write
random files.

> > There are the
> > issues of security and maintainability that have to be addressed,
>
> All issues were discussed and solved.

I am not aware they were all addressed, and if you had terminate in
there, which was clearly not addressed, I question whether the others
issues are addressed too. I think we need to re-discuss the idea of
these functions.

> > and
> > in the limited time we had to do this in 8.0, it was clear the patch
> > should not be applied.
> >
> > Now, in 8.1, the same thing has happened. Two weeks before feature
> > freeze,
>
> I posted it on June 1st.

Uh, you are right it wasn't June 22, but it was June 10, not June 1:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00226.php
>
> with no discussion, the patch appears, and makes no reference to
> > concerns raised during the 8.0 discussion.
>
> RTFM. The lengthy original discussion which addressed _all_ issues is
> referenced.

Is that true? I don't remember that conclusion myself. Do others?

> pg_terminate_backend is even
> > in the patch, and there is no mention or attempt to address concerns we
> > had in 8.0.
>
> I never intended to address the issues, I wanted to address the every
> day problem to kill a backend without killing the server. Drop it, for
> god's sake.

Well, here you are saying you didn't address concerns about terminate,
and just posted it because it was needed. That is my point.

> > The move of dbsize into the backend is similar. He moves the parts of
> > dbsize the pgadmin needs into the backend, but makes no mention or
> > change to /contrib/dbsize to adjust it to the movement of the code. He
> > has since posted and updated version that fixes this, I think, but
> > again, we have to discuss how this is to be done --- do we move all the
> > dbsize functions into the backend, some, or none? Do the other dbsize
> > functions stay in /contrib or get deleted?
> > This needs discussion, not a patch. And because there are so many
> > assumptions made in the patch, the patch committers look unreasonable
> > asking for X changes to his patch, when in fact he made X assumptions in
> > the patch and never asked anyone before developing the patch about those
> > assumptions.
>
> This was discussed lengthy starting May 11th, except for the broken
> dbsize functions. My post is the result from that.

Really? Where? I don't remember anything about it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073