FOSDEM/PGDay 2017 Developer Meeting

From PostgreSQL wiki
Revision as of 09:38, 2 February 2017 by Dpage (talk | contribs) (Minutes)
Jump to: navigation, search

A meeting of the interested PostgreSQL developers is being planned for Thursday 2nd February, 2017 at the Brussels Marriott Hotel, prior to FOSDEM/PGDay 2017. In order to keep the numbers manageable, this meeting is by invitation only. Unfortunately it is quite possible that we've overlooked important individuals during the planning of the event - if you feel you fall into this category and would like to attend, please contact Dave Page (

Please note that the attendee numbers have been kept low in order to keep the meeting more productive. Invitations have been sent only to developers that have been highly active on the database server over the 9.6 and 10 release cycles. We have not invited any contributors based on their contributions to related projects, or seniority in regional user groups or sponsoring companies.

This is a PostgreSQL Community event.

Meeting Goals

  • Review the progress of the 10.0 schedule, and formulate plans to address any issues
  • Address any proposed timing, policy, or procedure issues
  • Address any proposed Wicked problems

Time & Location

The meeting will be:

  • 9:00AM to 5:00PM
  • Brussels Marriott Hotel

Coffee, tea and snacks will be served starting at 8:45am. Lunch will be provided.


The following people have RSVPed to the meeting (in alphabetical order, by surname) and will be attending:

  • Oleg Bartunov
  • Andrew Dunstan
  • Stephen Frost
  • Etsuro Fujita
  • Magnus Hagander
  • Petr Jelinek
  • Alexander Korotkov
  • Noah Misch
  • Bruce Momjian
  • Simon Riggs
  • Dave Page
  • Masahiko Sawada
  • Tomas Vondra

The following people have sent their apologies:

  • Joe Conway
  • Dimitri Fontaine
  • Peter Geoghegan
  • Kyotaro Horiguchi
  • Shigeru Hanada
  • Amit Kapila
  • Tom Lane
  • Thomas Munro
  • Michael Paquier
  • Dean Rasheed
  • Craig Ringer
  • David Rowley
  • Teodor Sigaev
  • Heikki Linnakangas

Agenda Items

Please add agenda items here!

  • Sharding update
  • Setting up the Release Management Team for Postgres 10.0 (Simon)
  • Supporting management roles (aka: removing superuser checks) (Dave)
  • Adding DBA management roles (was Superowners) (Simon)
  • SQL/JSON in SQL-2016 Standard and our roadmap (Oleg)
  • Is it worth having loads of meetings if not everybody attends? (Simon)
  • Tools and services from pginfra (Magnus -- if others are interested, I don't have any specific entries myself)


Time Item Presenter
09:00 - 09:10 Welcome and introductions Dave
09:10 - 09:20 10.0 Release Review All
09:20 - 09:45 Setting up the Release Management Team for Postgres 10.0 Simon
09:45 - 10:00 Is it worth having loads of meetings if not everybody attends? Simon
10:00 - 10:30 Momjian Half Hour Bruce
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break All
11:00 - 11:30 SQL/JSON in SQL-2016 Standard and our roadmap Oleg
11:30 - 12:15 Supporting management roles (aka: removing superuser checks) Dave/Simon
12:15 - 12:45 Tools and services from pginfra Magnus
12:45 - 13:45 Lunch All
13:45 - 14:15 Performance Farm Tomas
14:15 - 15:00 Open CommitFest Item Review All
15:00 - 15:30 Tea break All
15:30 - 17:00 Open CommitFest Item Review All
16:45 - 17:00 Any other business Dave
17:00 Finish



Magnus: Be it noted that the Quadranteers were on time.

Apologies: Simon Riggs (travel issues prevented attendance)

10.0 Release Review

Dave: The point of this item is to quickly review the current status of the release and note any potential issues.
Magnus: The real question is that we're looking for a September release. Do we still think we can do that?
Noah: I don't see anything that would stop that.

All agree we're currently on track.

Setting up the Release Management Team for Postgres 10.0

Noah: Do we want an RMT again, and if so, do we want it to behave any differently from last year?
Stephen: From my perspective it seemed like a good thing and was helpful. How did it seem from the inside.
Noah: It was a lot of not very interesting work.
Bruce: What sort of work?
Noah: Keeping track of items and chasing people. Some of it could be automated perhaps.
Magnus: There's value in personal chasing rather than autmated.
Noah: We also did the scary patch tournament!
Bruce: The big value is that we ensure everything gets done.
Petr: It certainly helps that there are committers on the team, and they can, if needed, just revert a patch.
Stephen: It revolves around the open items list.
Noah: Certainly.
Magnus: Everyone is free to add, RMT removes.
Noah/Petr: People added to the open items list because they realised that's what the RMT are following
Dave: Is there anything that could be automated to ease the process?
Noah: Maybe a dashboard of what needs to be chased today?
Dave: Do we have the info needed for that on the CF app?
Noah: Not really, as we don't track the open items there specifically
Stephen: I have to email the list when I add an open item anyway, so it would be cool if I could have a tag and the CF app could pick that up.
Petr: What about tracking open items as part of the CF?
Magnus: The workflow for open items really isn't the same as it is for a CF. I'm worried that merging these functions together will make both processes less optimal.
Noah: Another task is trying to figure out what commit caused an open item, which is not always easy.
Dave: We could link to commits when closing items on the CF app, much like Redmine does
Dave: It seems like we're all in agreement that we want an RMT again.
Noah: Yes, I hear only good things.
Magnus: Who was on the last team?
Noah: Me, Robert Haas and Alvaro.
Magnus: We should not use the same people again to avoid burnout.
Noah: I'd be happy to do it - it's kindof calming.
Dave: It's a good thing to have one person roll over to the next year to build institutional knowledge/experience.
Stephen: I'd like to have a non-committer on the team.
Bruce: Should we have someone outside the Americas?
<discussion on where the center of the world is; Britain of course>.
Noah: Timing isn't a major issue - we don't need every RMT member in close timezones.
Stephen: Members of the RMT need to be very vocal and outspoken. They need to be a trusted voice and willing to deliver bad news
Dave: So we're agreed we need an RMT again, and Noah is willing to do it again or step down as needed.
Andrew: So the RMT is active from the end of the last commitfest until the release?
Noah: Yeah.
Dave: So if Noah is willing, I'd propose that he takes the lead on forming this years team.
Noah: Ok.
Bruce: Alexander would be good.
Noah: Are you interested?
Alexander: Yes

TODO: Noah to form RMT.

Is it worth having loads of meetings if not everybody attends?

Dave: <describes past developer meetings>
Dave: I expect Tokyo to be an exception - once every few years
Bruce: Will there be a Tokyo conference next year?
Etsuro: We'll have an Asia conference, but maybe China or elsehwere.
Noah: The improtant thing is we have a meeting with a critical mass of developers
Stephen: Yes, Ottawa is good for that.
Magnus: Ottawa is good for admin/procedural
Andrew: Should we make Brussels more open, an unconference style?
Magnus: I think that works well at Ottawa because of the large conference as well. We could have an entire open meeting on patch triage for example though.
Bruce: Who was in Tokyo (about half). That shows maybe geographical distribution may not be an issue.
Magnus: Lists people who went to Tokyo. There was only one person who was in Tokyo who hasn't been in Ottawa or Brussels
Noah: I don't really want to travel that much - I'm only here because I was in Europe anyway.
Bruce: Was Tokyo useful?
Dave: I think it was useful to meet with our Japanese colleagues who we rarely see, but I don't think it was a forum for making decisions.
Magnus: If we didn't have the Tokyo meeting, maybe we would have had a full agenda today.
Stephen: I think it's useful to have some number of developers talking through designs etc. at multiple conferences.
Dave: So really what you're saying is that we should have technical un-conferences
Bruce: Yeah, or maybe half and half.
Stephen: When I was thinking of coming here, I wasn't thinking so much about the technical content, but perhaps I should.
Magnus: Having the CF review is a good thing, and it doesn't need to be closed.
Bruce: We could have 2 rooms, one for patch triage and one for unconference.
Andrew: For serious triage, you need Toms and Alvaros and so on.
Dave: So, keep Ottawa as it is, and make other dev meetings more unconference/triage events.
Stephen: Right - but we need to ensure senior devs attend.
Bruce: I don't want to preclude procedural discussions at other events though.
Dave: We can always take an unconference session if needed.
Magnus: Or start the unconference an hour later.

TODO: Dave to investigate options for Brussels/Asia next year.

Momjian Half Hour

Dave: I'm failing as a moderator as this item now needs to be the Momjian 18 minutes.
Bruce: I'm not sure I even have 5 minutes.
Bruce: I want to recap on sharding that we discussed in Tokyo. Simon said it looked like we had a workable project - and with the various bits of work on partitioning and pushdown etc. it looks like we'll have something for 10.0, but not everything.
Petr: Declarative partitioning doesn't work with FDWs yet.
Bruce: Yes, that limits what can be done in 10.0
Noah: What are the projects ongoing that are part of this?
Bruce: I put a blog out after Tokyo that links to the wiki where I'm tracking the various parts of the project:
Noah: Are there patches in the CF right now?
Bruce: Yes, unfortunately they're just sitting there.
Stephen: Which ones?
Bruce: Parallel foreign data push-down
Etsuro: Yes, that's been proposed but noone has reviewed it yet. There's also a transaction manager proposal that's received no feedback.
Bruce: Whilst there are things waiting, overall I'm very happy with how fast things are going.
Bruce: On security...
Bruce: There's more to it than SSL certs etc - auditing, policy and more - and we don't do enough. We have a mindset in the community that "if it can't be 100% bulletproof, we won't do it". 
Bruce: We need to do much more, and accept that it won't be perfect.
Dave: I don't think we're holding back on things like SSL cert docs for that reason - we can just improve them. On the other hand, we also know that RLS isn't perfect and has some known covert channels - but we recognise there's little we can do about that.
Masahiko: We've been doing work on pg_audit.
Stephen: We need to figure out if we can put it in core.
Tomas: It's a similar problem to pg_logical, in that it started out as an extension. We will soon have 3 forks of pg_audit - which is not good.
Petr: We'll always want more features; we have to understand that the in-core solution might only be 90%.
Tomas: (to Stephen) You should talk to Abhijit if you're interested in making pg_audit in-core again.
Bruce: I think the two areas we're lacking is documentation and auditing.
Stephen: I agree that docs need improvement, but I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't just do that. I think we need more than auditing though - some kind of cell based RLS.

TODO: Bruce to improve docs on SSL certficate setups
TODO: Bruce to complete TODOs from last years meeting.