On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:25:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:54 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@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 <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
