I tend to lean towards Josh's perspective. Gossip was poorly tested and
implemented. I dont think it's a good parallel or at least I hope it's not.
Taken to the extreme we shouldn't touch the database at all otherwise,
which isn't practical. That said, anything touching important subsystems
needs m
Naming is hard but to me providing what Caleb mentioned through something
like WITH OPTIONS sounds reasonable. Thanks for bringing it up.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 at 2:46, Joel Shepherd wrote:
> WITH INDEX (or something equivalent) seems really useful.
>
> Less opinionated on the specific syntax, but
I’m not saying we need to tease out bugs from TCM. I’m saying every time someone touches something this central to correctness we introduce a risk of breaking it, and that we should exercise that risk judiciously. This has zero to do with the amount of data we’re pushing through it, and 100% to do
To play the devil's advocate - the more we exercise TCM the more bugs we suss
out. To Jon's point, the volume of information we're talking about here in
terms of capabilities dissemination shouldn't stress TCM at all.
I think a reasonable heuristic for relying on TCM for something is whether
th
