Re: Interesting post-mortem on a near disaster with git

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Interesting post-mortem on a near disaster with git
Date: 2013-03-24 22:22:12
Message-ID: 514F7C94.1060103@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 03/24/2013 06:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> Over the weekend, KDE came within a gnat's eyelash of losing *all*
> their authoritative git repos, despite having seemingly-extensive
> redundancy. Read about it here:
> http://jefferai.org/2013/03/24/too-perfect-a-mirror/
>
> It is really great that KDE people are actually sharing this
> experience. This is really profitable for other projects as well as
> individuals.
> And thanks for sharing it here.
>
>
> We should think about protecting our own repo a bit better, especially
> after the recent unpleasantness with a bogus forced update. The idea
> of having clones that are deliberately a day or two behind seems
> attractive ...
>
> Just an idea here: why not adding a new subdomain in postgresql.org
> <http://postgresql.org> for mirrors of the official GIT repository
> similar to the buildfarm?
> People registered in this service could publish themselves mirrors and
> decide by themselves the delay their
> clone keeps with the parent repo. The scripts used by each mirror
> maintainer (for backup, sync repo with
> a given delay) could be centralized in a way similar to buildfarm code
> so as everybody in the community could
> use it and publish it if they want.
>
> Also, the mirrors published should be maintained by people that are
> well-known inside the community,
> and who would not add extra commits which would make the mirror
> out-of-sync with the parent repo.
>
> Such an idea is perhaps too much if the point is to maintain 2-3
> mirrors of the parent repo, but gives
> enough transparency to actually know where the mirrors are and what is
> the sync delay maintained.

This strikes me as being overkill. The sysadmins seem to have it covered.

Back when we used CVS for quite a few years I kept 7 day rolling
snapshots of the CVS repo, against just such a difficulty as this. But
we seem to be much better organized with infrastructure these days so I
haven't done that for a long time.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2013-03-24 22:24:33 Re: WIP: index support for regexp search
Previous Message Greg Stark 2013-03-24 22:10:41 Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay