Обсуждение: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ...
Bruce, After some delay with server issues, I've loaded these contrib modules. Since I'm not hip to the magic required to remove a directory safely in CVS, please do it for me? Migrated to pgFoundry:adddepends (Greg) dbmirror (Steve Singer) dbase --> dbf2pg fulltextindex --> simplefti mac (LER) --> mac-manufacturer userlock (Merlin) Please also kill the following two contrib directories, because despite an impassioned plea by Robert Treat, they appear to not have any users (at least nobody responded to posts on PWN or -hackers) tips mSQL-interface -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Migrated to pgFoundry: [...] > userlock (Merlin) Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a previous "let's clean up contrib/" thread. If it's not going into core in 8.2 then it needs to stay in contrib. People then didn't seem receptive to my suggestion that the existing userlock code was non-copyrightable (on the grounds of being pure interface), but that difficulty no longer exists now that Abhijit has posted his clean-room rewrite (look for "otherlock" in -patches). Perhaps he would be prepared to turn that into a patch against the core... -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Migrated to pgFoundry:
> adddepends (Greg)
> dbmirror (Steve Singer)
> dbase --> dbf2pg
> fulltextindex --> simplefti
> mac (LER) --> mac-manufacturer
> userlock (Merlin)
> Please also kill the following two contrib directories, because despite an
> impassioned plea by Robert Treat, they appear to not have any users (at least
> nobody responded to posts on PWN or -hackers)
> tips
> mSQL-interface
Checking my copy of the "hit list", I thought we'd agreed to migrate
contrib/oracle as well.
regards, tom lane
Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
> Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a
> previous "let's clean up contrib/" thread.
Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for
taking the opportunity to redesign the API, which was a bit crufty to
begin with. That would eliminate all question of whether the clean room
was clean enough.
regards, tom lane
At 2006-09-05 10:23:19 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: > > Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for > taking the opportunity to redesign the API, which was a bit crufty to > begin with. I'm happy to do the work right away (not that there's much) if someone suggests a better API. (I don't personally have a need for user-level locks, and if I did, I'd be happy with just user_lock/user_unlock. So if anyone has a more specific idea, I'm all ears.) > That would eliminate all question of whether the clean room was > clean enough. It was really, really clean! Honest! :-) -- ams
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes: > >> Userlock needs to go into core, not get removed; this was discussed in a >> previous "let's clean up contrib/" thread. >> > > Something like it ought to go into core, but personally I'd opt for > taking the opportunity to redesign the API, which was a bit crufty to > begin with. That would eliminate all question of whether the clean room > was clean enough. > > > It seems odd to remove the module from contrib for 8.2 and then put a replacement in core for 8.3. I guess we could signal our intentions in the release notes. It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago.
Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do
anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation.
However, as I said, I'd really rather choose a new API altogether. The
main thing that seems to be lacking is a way to wait for a lock, rather
than having only the equivalent of ConditionalLockAcquire. Also I don't
much like exposing a LOCKMODE directly to user code --- to use
user_lock() or user_unlock() you have to put magic numbers into your SQL
code and hope nobody reassigns the C enum values in future releases.
I'd be inclined to just expose the notions of "share" and "exclusive"
lock and make these separate functions instead of magic numbers.
And then there's the question of what to expose in the way of lock
identifier options. What we've got now is "two int4's or an OID"
which seems a bit random, not to mention that the key space overlaps
in an undocumented fashion. Possibly we could offer OID, int8, or
two int4s, and modify the code to set locktag_field4 to distinguish
these cases so that the key spaces are independent.
I have no opinions about function names, except that I'd suggest
choosing names based around "advisory lock" instead of "user lock".
Advisory locks are a standard concept and so that terminology
already tells people something ...
regards, tom lane
Andrew, > It seems odd to remove the module from contrib for 8.2 and then put a > replacement in core for 8.3. I guess we could signal our intentions in > the release notes. The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed. --Josh
Tom, > Checking my copy of the "hit list", I thought we'd agreed to migrate > contrib/oracle as well. Hmmm ... somehow that got dropped out of discussions early on, without any reason why. See the "more nuclear options" thread; oracle is nowhere on it. Will only take me 30 min to migrate, but we need to give people time to object ... and I need to check whether there's even any code in there that superceded orasysviews and orafce and oralink. Hey, everyone, if you have a reason for contrib/oracle not to migrate out to pgFoundry, speak up now! Or if you want to take the new project over, speak up too. --Josh Berkus
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Checking my copy of the "hit list", I thought we'd agreed to migrate
>> contrib/oracle as well.
> Hmmm ... somehow that got dropped out of discussions early on, without
> any reason why.
Actually ... never mind that, it seems to have been done already.
Sorry for the noise.
regards, tom lane
On 9/5/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago. > > Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do > anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation. yes, userlocks have to be documented, in particular the dangers of lock exhaustion. also a tie-in to the recently upgraded pg_locks view would be nice. > However, as I said, I'd really rather choose a new API altogether. The > main thing that seems to be lacking is a way to wait for a lock, rather > than having only the equivalent of ConditionalLockAcquire. Also I don't > much like exposing a LOCKMODE directly to user code --- to use > user_lock() or user_unlock() you have to put magic numbers into your SQL > code and hope nobody reassigns the C enum values in future releases. > I'd be inclined to just expose the notions of "share" and "exclusive" > lock and make these separate functions instead of magic numbers. I agree 100%. > And then there's the question of what to expose in the way of lock > identifier options. What we've got now is "two int4's or an OID" > which seems a bit random, not to mention that the key space overlaps > in an undocumented fashion. Possibly we could offer OID, int8, or > two int4s, and modify the code to set locktag_field4 to distinguish > these cases so that the key spaces are independent. right, this is some legacy cruft, in fact I raised this to your attention which was perhaps part of the inspiration to upgrade pg_locks. > I have no opinions about function names, except that I'd suggest > choosing names based around "advisory lock" instead of "user lock". > Advisory locks are a standard concept and so that terminology > already tells people something ... Agreement here also. As to the point of userlocks being in core, they are in fact already in core, and have been several years, the name 'userlock' having been taken from the in source documentation. The userlock contrib module is nothing besides some wrappers for exisiting functions built into the backend. Removing userlock from contrib just removes a convenient mechanism to use them. I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api. I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can copyright a function wrapper. merlin
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
> userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
> I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
> term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can
> copyright a function wrapper.
Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility
thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to
put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if
someone will do the legwork to define and implement them.
After further thought it occurs to me that having both OID and int8
keys might be a problem, in that it's not too clear which you'd get
from a single-argument call. But we could offer just int8 and two-int4
signatures and rely on promoting OID to int8 if you need a lock on OID.
So the function list might look like
void pg_advisory_lock(int8) waitvoid pg_advisory_lock_shared(int8) waitbool
pg_try_advisory_lock(int8) no waitbool pg_try_advisory_lock_shared(int8) no waitbool
pg_advisory_unlock(int8) returns T if successfulbool pg_advisory_unlock_shared(int8) returns T if
successful
plus all the above taking 2 int4's, plus
void pg_advisory_unlock_all()
Not wedded to these names at all...
regards, tom lane
On 2006-09-05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> It's a pity we didn't have Abhijit's patch 6 weeks ago. > > Well, now that we have it, the question is whether we want to do > anything with it. One problem is it lacks documentation. > > However, as I said, I'd really rather choose a new API altogether. What about existing users? > The main thing that seems to be lacking is a way to wait for a lock, Is this a feature that people actually want or need? Certainly exposing the lockmode as a magic number isn't ideal. > And then there's the question of what to expose in the way of lock > identifier options. What we've got now is "two int4's or an OID" > which seems a bit random, not to mention that the key space overlaps > in an undocumented fashion. It is documented in the original README.user_locks. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed. Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in, BSD-licensed replacement for the current code. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
On 9/5/06, Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote: > On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed. > > Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in, > BSD-licensed replacement for the current code. does his patch include documentation? I can help with that if it isn't done. was it reviewed? merlin
Merlin, > > > The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed. > > > > Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in, > > BSD-licensed replacement for the current code. > > does his patch include documentation? I can help with that if it isn't > done. was it reviewed? No, and no. It's unfortunately too late for Abhijit's patch to make it into 8.2; it was't submitted until last week, I believe. So userlocks will be in pgFoundry for the next rev -- frankly, it should have been for 8.1 but I forgot it. For the 8.3 version, as Tom has indicated we may want to change the API somewhat anyway, so we'll want the pgFoundry version for backwards-compat. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Tom Lane wrote: > Checking my copy of the "hit list", I thought we'd agreed to migrate > contrib/oracle as well. It has already been removed because it is being actively maintained elsewhere. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On 9/5/06, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > So userlocks will be in pgFoundry for the next rev -- frankly, it should > have been for 8.1 but I forgot it. For the 8.3 version, as Tom has > indicated we may want to change the API somewhat anyway, so we'll want the > pgFoundry version for backwards-compat. well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question. If that's the case I'm considering putting something together quickly. It's no big deal to me either way really. However, it would really be a shame to drop the contrib module and leave 8.2 without a way of easily use them (userlocks being, imho, the #1 greatest undiscovered feature in pg). To be honest, I don't see the need for a backwards-compat version at all, because all you need to do is copy and paste the code from 8.1. If advisory functions are promoted in core (8.3 or no), sql wrappers for compatibility would be trivial to implement. These are one line wrappers here. merlin
Merlin, > well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be > sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question. You're correct, he did. Tom? > If that's the > case I'm considering putting something together quickly. It's no big > deal to me either way really. However, it would really be a shame to > drop the contrib module and leave 8.2 without a way of easily use them > (userlocks being, imho, the #1 greatest undiscovered feature in pg). Well, all I'm dealing with is that the *existing GPL code* can't stay. Let me know if Abhijit's version (or something else) gets accepted and I'll kill the pgFoundry project. Overall, though, I think we should really wait until 8.3 for core merge and API improvements. Wasn't Tom just complaining about last-minute features, and not enough code reviewers? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
On 2006-09-05, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/5/06, Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote: >> On 2006-09-05, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> > The current code is GPL. It *has* to be removed. >> >> Which is why Abhijit's version exists - it's intended to be a drop-in, >> BSD-licensed replacement for the current code. > > does his patch include documentation? I can help with that if it isn't > done. was it reviewed? I don't think it has docs. The existing docs would be fine unless anyone thinks that those also have copyright problems. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
Tom Lane wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: >> I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for >> userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api. >> I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short >> term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can >> copyright a function wrapper. > > Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility > thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to > put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if > someone will do the legwork to define and implement them. hmm - that is all a nice and such - but is it really a good idea to do this that late in the release-cycle ? I think the most "natural" thing would be to replace the existing GPL'd userlock code with the new one and discuss the API-change one for 8.3 and up ... Stefan
On 2006-09-05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility > thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to > put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if > someone will do the legwork to define and implement them. So you're prepared to violate the feature freeze to stick in a new API that nobody currently wants to _use_, while forcing existing users to resort to pgfoundry for a module that's been around for several major releases? -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
On 9/5/06, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > >> I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for > >> userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api. > >> I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short > >> term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can > >> copyright a function wrapper. > > > > Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility > > thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to > > put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if > > someone will do the legwork to define and implement them. > > hmm - that is all a nice and such - but is it really a good idea to do > this that late in the release-cycle ? > I think the most "natural" thing would be to replace the existing GPL'd > userlock code with the new one and discuss the API-change one for 8.3 > and up ... I think that's a reasonable solution, replace the existing (renamed?) contrib with new wrappers and push core migration/documentation out to 8.3. Then we are talking about one line wrappers here, not a feature per se... merlin
Tom Lane wrote: > I'm happy to > put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if > someone will do the legwork to define and implement them. > > OK, who are you and what have you done with the real Tom Lane? cheers andrew
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Merlin,
>> well, I'm confused now. Tom said that cleaned up functions might be
>> sneaked into 8.2, which is what prompted my question.
> You're correct, he did. Tom?
Well, it's not like we're done with forced initdb's for 8.2, so I don't
particularly see the harm in adding a few more functions. I would be
against writing something large and complicated at this point, but these
functions are trivial (practically one-liners) and I don't think there's
a lot of debate needed about the API. The biggest part of the work
needed is to write the documentation --- but we'd have to do that for
Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks docs presumably fall under GPL
along with the code.
So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something cleaner
and suitable for the long run with not very much more effort.
regards, tom lane
On 2006-09-05, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short > term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can > copyright a function wrapper. I made this point several times in the original discussion (which was a year and a half or so ago). However, others seemed to disagree, which is why we now have a replacement version. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes: > Overall, though, I think we should really wait until 8.3 for core merge and > API improvements. Wasn't Tom just complaining about last-minute features, > and not enough code reviewers? He may have worked through enough of the backlog that he's ready to add more to the queue ? ;-) -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://linuxdatabases.info/info/languages.html This program posts news to billions of machines throughout the galaxy. Your message will cost the net enough to bankrupt your entire planet. As a result your species will be sold into slavery. Be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure you want to do this? [yn] y
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: > > The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation --- > but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks > docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code. I'll write the documentation, either for the code as it is, or for any replacement we decide to use. I didn't submit documentation (or a Makefile, uninstall_otherlock.sql, etc.) only because I didn't know if anything was going to be done with otherlock now. I just wanted to mention the existence of the code. > So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a > bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something > cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more > effort. Fine with me. Two questions: - Where would the code live, if it were in core? - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message? -- ams
Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com> writes:
> Fine with me. Two questions:
> - Where would the code live, if it were in core?
New file under utils/adt/ probably ... it's not a new datatype exactly,
but that's the default place for new SQL-visible functions.
> - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?
I'm not wedded to any part of that proposal, but I haven't seen any
objections or better ideas yet ...
regards, tom lane
On 9/5/06, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com> wrote: > At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: > > > > The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation --- > > but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks > > docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code. > > I'll write the documentation, either for the code as it is, or for any > replacement we decide to use. > > I didn't submit documentation (or a Makefile, uninstall_otherlock.sql, > etc.) only because I didn't know if anything was going to be done with > otherlock now. I just wanted to mention the existence of the code. > > > So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a > > bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something > > cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more > > effort. > > Fine with me. Two questions: > > - Where would the code live, if it were in core? > - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message? are we still moving forward with this? I would love to see this go in for 8.2. merlin
At 2006-09-07 00:16:38 -0400, mmoncure@gmail.com wrote: > > > - Where would the code live, if it were in core? > > - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message? > > are we still moving forward with this? I would love to see this go in > for 8.2. I don't know about its going into 8.2 or not, but I'm writing the code, and I'll submit a patch tomorrow. -- ams
At 2006-09-05 05:47:58 -0000, andrew+nonews@supernews.com wrote: > > that difficulty no longer exists now that Abhijit has posted his > clean-room rewrite (look for "otherlock" in -patches). Perhaps he > would be prepared to turn that into a patch against the core... Absolutely. Just tell me where it should live and I'll post a patch. -- ams
Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com> writes:
> At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>> So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
>> bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something
>> cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more
>> effort.
> Fine with me. Two questions:
> - Where would the code live, if it were in core?
> - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?
Is this going anywhere? The days grow short ...
regards, tom lane