Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Gavin Sherry
> IIRC BSD stands for "Berkeley Standard Distribution", and as PostgreSQL > was originally released as free software from Berkeley under this > license it would be weird indeed to call it anything else. FWIW, 'Berkeley Software Distribution'. ---(end of broadcast)

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Hannu Krosing
Shachar Shemesh kirjutas R, 23.04.2004 kell 07:53: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you > >>would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and > >>distribute it along with t

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Hannu Krosing
Shachar Shemesh kirjutas N, 22.04.2004 kell 19:49: > The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's, does NOT require me to > copy license related texts around, only the copyrights themselves. It > does pose certain restrictions on what I am allowed to do with the > copyrights, but any modern fre

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] What can we learn from MySQL?

2004-04-22 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. Questions I have are: I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the inability to change

Re: [HACKERS] What can we learn from MySQL?

2004-04-22 Thread David Garamond
Bruce Momjian wrote: My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. MySQL was my first introduction to SQL databases (I had dabbled with Clipper and Foxpro years earlier, but only for a couple of months and had forg

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a > >different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license. > > > > > But that's not the BSD license. [...] > The BSD license, in contrast to Postgr

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Tom Lane wrote: Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code. You can't relicense code you don't own Sur

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What if we create a build/ directory as part of install that > pg_config.h, Makefile.global, etc, anything a plugin would need, and > install it by default. Then, if we give folks an easy way to access > them from their own apps and Makefiles, it would s

[HACKERS] What can we learn from MySQL?

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Here is a blog about a recent MySQL conference with title, "Why MySQL Grew So Fast": http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4715 and a a Slashdot discussion about it: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/20/2229212&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=185&tid=187&tid=198 My questi

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, I think the number of files needed to build modules is small and I > think can be installed by default in a /build directory. I am thinking > that with a little script help, projects can build apps that look like > like Makefiles used in our core pr

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > > No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a > > part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths. > > Is it your goal to make it har

Re: [HACKERS] pg_encoding not needed anymore

2004-04-22 Thread Robert Treat
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 16:54, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> g a data store for many databases, not a single database. But I > >> think it is far too sanctified by history to change now, just as Ken > >> Thompson now wishes he had put an 'e' on the end of 'creat' but can't >

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As I've said on other parts of this thread, my concern with moving > > everything to gborg/pgFoundry is that it raises the bar in terms of > > difficulty if we expect every individual project to develop their own > > infrastructure. >

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote: > No, I don't call that lazy, I call it smart. It makes use (reuse) of a > part of Postgres (the contrib build system) that is among its strengths. > Is it your goal to make it harder for people to write their own C

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 22 April 2004 13:55, Barry Lind wrote: > I think the solution lies in improving www.postgresql.org. At the end > of the day it doesn't matter where source code lives, what matters is > can people find what they are expecting. Given we know what people are > looking for, that should be

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you > would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and > distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code. You can't relicense code you don't own (if Shachar thinks dif

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I've said on other parts of this thread, my concern with moving > everything to gborg/pgFoundry is that it raises the bar in terms of > difficulty if we expect every individual project to develop their own > infrastructure. I think that's exactly righ

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Joe Conway
Bruce Momjian wrote: Marc G. Fournier wrote: Right, but you don't count ... you aren't an end-user True, but what the end users get is nothing because I don't have the time. No configure, no build environment, very user-unfriendly. Exactly. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 20:09, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > I guess that is where we differ in opinion. pgadmin is not addon or an > > enhancement, it is a part of the core project every bit as much as the > > gnome-panel is a part of gnome. Sure, gnome-lib

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > There are only a few PostgreSQL developers who can do it, so what are > > > > the odds that a single guy who maintains a plugin is going t

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Jeff Davis
> I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at > the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like > license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license > by now. > http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html http://w

[HACKERS] Threading for 7.5

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
As you know, we had libpq and ecpg threading available in 7.4 via a configure flag. However, threading required users to report their platform's configure flags (something better done by configure) and run a thread test program (src/tools/thread/thread_test). For 7.5, I want to use: http

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > There are only a few PostgreSQL developers who can do it, so what are > > > the odds that a single guy who maintains a plugin is going to be able to > > > do it. And you can

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > I guess that is where we differ in opinion. pgadmin is not addon or an > enhancement, it is a part of the core project every bit as much as the > gnome-panel is a part of gnome. Sure, gnome-libs does all the heavy > lifting, but without the panel most users

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread pgsql
> Taking into account that quite a few people have repeatedly stated that the components in contrib are considered more supported/recommended than similar solutions found on gborg or any other external site, I suggest we move the projects dbmirror and dblink to gborg. The rserv contrib module seems

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Joe Conway
Josh Berkus wrote: We can't have *everything* in contrib -- the top 5 GUIs alone would triple the size of our downloads. So we need to move in the opposite direction -- putting more stuff in pgFoundry, and letting packagers know that they should package and include all "mature" projects on pgF

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Tom Lane wrote: ==29929== Syscall param write(buf) contains uninitialised or unaddressable byte(s) The original pad bytes may be fairly far removed from the point of the error ... an example is that I was able to make one XLogInsert complaint go away by changing palloc to palloc0 at tupdesc.c

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Darren King
> I agree with the notion that "contrib" be removed > from the main distribution. There is, however, a > disconnect between supporting projects and the main system. > > Take a look at the www.postgresql.org web site. > Most people visually filter out the side bars. I've > been looking over effectiv

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The original pad bytes may be fairly far removed from the point of the >> error ... an example is that I was able to make one XLogInsert complaint >> go away by changing palloc to palloc0 at tupdesc.c line 413 (in >> TupleDescInitEntr

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Tom Lane wrote: No, that says that you can't remove the copyright notice from files that have it. It doesn't say that nearby files have to have the same license. (Compare to the GPL, which *does* say that.) The bottom line here is that you cannot relicense code you didn't write; this is generall

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Min Xu (Hsu)
I am also interested in this so I want to make some comments. On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 Shachar Shemesh wrote : > Found it: > http://developer.kde.org/~sewardj/docs-2.0.0/mc_main.html, section 3.3.2 > > >It is important to understand that your program can copy around junk > >(uninitialised) data to it

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread pgsql
> Taking into account that quite a few people have repeatedly stated that > the components in contrib are considered more supported/recommended than > similar solutions found on gborg or any other external site, I suggest > we move the projects dbmirror and dblink to gborg. The rserv contrib > modu

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading > something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what > is the requirement? You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or the binary, depending on what you ship. A st

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Min Xu (Hsu) wrote: I am confused by how valgrind define "make use" of data? Isn't "copy" data a type of "make use"? I mean, if valgrind checks if the data was used as inputs of memcpy(), it is fine. But if user uses his own memory_copy(), which loads the data into register, as if the data is goin

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Shachar Shemesh wrote: Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what is the requirement? You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or the binary, dependi

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Barry Lind
Kris, Thank you. I objected to having the jdbc code moved out of the base product cvs tree for some of the reasons being discussed in this thread: how are people going to find the jdbc driver, how will they get documentation for it, etc. I think the core problem is that some people view post

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: > > >On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > > > > >>The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all > >>related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what > >>BSD means. > >> > >> > > > >What

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Valgrind'ing the postmaster yields a fair number of errors. A lot of > them are similar, such as the following: > ==29929== Use of uninitialised value of size 4 > ==29929==at 0x80AFB80: XLogInsert (xlog.c:570) Oh, I see the issue. Shachar is correct

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Jan, > Josh, is there anything that remotely sounds like this in the new system > you're setting up? Not AFAIK. I'm really not a CVS person (as you may have gathered), but I'm under the impression that GForge is a pretty "dumb" user of CVS. As far as I'm concerned, what you've suggested is

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD > >>license. The problem is that there are two. > >> > >> > > > >We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all > related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what > BSD means. What license text do you think implies this? -Neil ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Neil Conway wrote: On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote: The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what BSD means. What license text do you think implies this? -Neil provided that

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Conway wrote: >> What license text do you think implies this? > provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the > following two paragraphs appear in all copies. > I read that to mean that all copies must have the same license

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Shachar Shemesh wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I suspect valgrind is complaining because XLogInsert is memcpy'ing a struct that has allocation padding in it. Which of course is a bogus complaint ... As far as I remember (couldn't find modern documentation on the matter) Valgrind is resitant to this

Re: [HACKERS] valgrind errors

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Tom Lane wrote: Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Any thoughts on what could be causing these errors? I suspect valgrind is complaining because XLogInsert is memcpy'ing a struct that has allocation padding in it. Which of course is a bogus complaint ... As far as I remember (coul

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Tom Lane wrote: Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD license. The problem is that there are two. We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the source tree, which is also available for you

Re: [HACKERS] [Pgreplication-general] converting the DBMirror as peer-to-peer

2004-04-22 Thread ssinger
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: I haven't yet seen the patch, but conceptually I'm conrned about how it can handle situations like this sequence INSERT row X into database A INSERT row X into database B DBMIrror from A to B locks table the mirror will fail. > > Where are we on t

Re: [HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD > license. The problem is that there are two. We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the source tree, which is also available for your reading pleasure b

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Jan Wieck
Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:29:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: I am thinking they could untar into a directory under pgsgl/ or have a way to point to a 'configure'-run source tree and pull values from there. If you include pg_config.h, or use Makefile.global, you have alm

Re: [HACKERS] GUC variable set, TODO

2004-04-22 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Here's a draft of the solution that I'm currently working on for custom GUC variables: A new string variable 'custom_variable_classes' is introduced. This variable is a comma separated string of identifiers. Each identifier denots a 'class' that will allow its members to be added without error. Th

[HACKERS] License question

2004-04-22 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Hi all, Who can give an authorative answer regarding distributing PostgreSQL under a different license? In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD license. The problem is that there are two. The four clause license, which is not GPL compatible, and the three clause,

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Kris Jurka
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > We have the current issue of people not knowing that projects like > > pgadmin exist or where to find the jdbc drivers. > > Now, out of all of the PostgreSQL users, what % are using JDBC? What % > are

Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

2004-04-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > There are only a few PostgreSQL developers who can do it, so what are > > the odds that a single guy who maintains a plugin is going to be able to > > do it. And you can say it is easy, but it just takes one complex > > pro

Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate variable declared?

2004-04-22 Thread mike g
Joe Conway wrote: mike g wrote: In file postgresql-7.4.2/src/backend/utils/fmgrtab.c This is an automatically generated file. The reason for duplicate array_push declarations is that one-and-the-same array_push function is used to implement two SQL functions, array_append and array_prepend