On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:47:28PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Jan-17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Is this really something we are considering applying, since it has been
> > around for years? I am unclear on that and we had better know if we are
> > going to continue reviewing this.
>
> The fact that the patch has been around for years doesn't automatically
> mean it's a bad idea.
Yes, I think we passed the Desirability criteria with the feedback on
this thread, but it is now a question of whether the code complexity
justifies the feature. I saw a few people saying they want _some_ parts
of the patch, which opens the suggestion that even people who want the
patch are seeing parts of the patch that are too much. I have seen this
patch circling around, and I think it needs a step a back for analysis.
> I have proposed that we discuss this patch at fosdem developer's meeting
> next month, precisely to seek consensus on whether this patch is
> something we want or not. My view is that this is a feature that has
> been requested by users for years, so IMO we want this or something
> similar.
Yes, the meeting review is a very good idea.
> I wonder if the reason that committers stay away from it is that
> reviewing it fully (and thus taking responsibility for it) seems such a
> daunting task. I might be wrong, but I think this may be the largest
> patch since FTS.
I think we have to identify a committer who is willing to consider
application of this patch before the patch can move forward.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
