On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:54 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > (I may have said this before, but) My overall high-level impression of
> > this patch is that it's really cmmplex for a feature that you use maybe
> > once in the lifetime of a cluster. I'm happy to review but I'm not
> > planning to commit this myself. I don't object if some other committer
> > picks this up (Magnus?).
>
> A fairly large amount of this complexity comes out of the fact that it
> now supports restarting and tracks checksums on a per-table basis. We
> skipped this in the original patch for exactly this reason (that's not
> to say there isn't a fair amount of complexity even without it, but it
> did substantially i increase both the size and the complexity of the
> patch), but in the review of that i was specifically asked for having
> that added. I personally don't think it's worth that complexity but at
> the time that seemed to be a pretty strong argument. So I'm not
> entirely sure how to move forward with that...
>
> is your impression that it would still be too complicated, even without that?
I was wondering why this feature has stalled for so long --- now I know.
This does highlight the risk of implementing too many additions to a
feature. I am working against this dynamic in the cluster file
encryption feature I am working on.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee