On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:17 PM Yurii Rashkovskii <yra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I appreciate your support on the pid file concern. What questions do you have > about this feature with regard to its desirability and/or implementation? I'd > love to learn from your insight and address any of those if I can.
I don't have any particularly specific concerns. But, you know, if a bunch of other people, especially people already known the community showed up on this thread to say "hey, I'd like that too" or "that would be better than what we have now," well then that would make me think "hey, we should probably move forward with this thing." But so far the only people to comment are Tom and Andrew. Tom, in addition to complaining about the PID file thing, also basically said that the feature didn't seem necessary to him, and Andrew's comments seem to me to suggest the same thing. So it kind of seems like you've convinced zero people that this is a thing we should have, and that's not very many. It happens from time to time on this mailing list that somebody shows up to propose a feature where I say to myself "hmm, that doesn't sound like an intrinsically terrible idea, but it sounds like it might be specific enough that only the person proposing it would ever use it." For instance, someone might propose a new backslash command for psql that runs an SQL query that produces some output which that person finds useful. There is no big design problem there, but psql is already pretty cluttered with commands that look like line noise, so we shouldn't add a new one on the strength of one person wanting it. Each feature, even if it's minor, has some cost. New releases need to keep it working, which may mean that it needs a test, and then the test is another thing that you have to keep working, and it also takes time to run every time anyone does make check-world. These aren't big costs and don't set a high bar for adding new features, but they do mean, at least IMHO, that one person wanting a feature that isn't obviously of general utility is not good enough. I think all of that also applies to this feature. I haven't reviewed the code in detail. It at least has some style issues, but worrying about that seems premature. I mostly just wanted to say that I disagreed with Tom about the particular point on postmaster.pid, without really expressing an opinion about anything else. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
