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

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that superceded orasysviews and orafce and oralink.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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

"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) wait
void pg_advisory_lock_shared(int8) wait
bool pg_try_advisory_lock(int8) no wait
bool pg_try_advisory_lock_shared(int8) no wait
bool pg_advisory_unlock(int8) returns T if successful
bool 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

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 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:
> 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

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/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

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

---------------------------(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