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 <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
