From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Key management with tests
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:20:36 -0800
Message-ID: <20210116042036.cpuadvs2bdbsblia@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210116014910.GI8740@momjian.us>
References: <CA+hUKGL21_sf1gj2oxqGMEMJHxybZ_9v+9auz0_VDaDsUJZ+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20210110145116.GE19555@momjian.us>
<20210112170409.GN4320@momjian.us>
<20210115204926.GD8740@momjian.us>
<CA+Tgmoaon7NE0FxH7HXiF4cFJvkn0qMui_oxyvkO6Ri9+D7u4A@mail.gmail.com>
<20210115214719.GE8740@momjian.us>
<20210115223756.si7s3vpa3ewji6u6@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20210116002132.GG8740@momjian.us>
<20210116005624.ai7gyqee5c6fvnwh@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20210116014910.GI8740@momjian.us>
Hi,
On 2021-01-15 20:49:10 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 04:56:24PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-01-15 19:21:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > You have to understand cryptography and Postgres internals to understand
> > > the design, and I don't think it is realistic to explain that all to the
> > > community. We did much of this in voice calls over months because it
> > > was too much of a burden to explain all the cryptographic details so
> > > everyone could follow along.
> >
> > I think that's not at all acceptable. I don't mind hashing out details
> > on calls / off-list, but the design needs to be public, documented, and
> > reviewable. And if it's something the community can't understand, then
> > it can't get in. We're going to have to maintain this going forward.
>
> OK, so we don't want it. That's fine with me.
That's not what I said...
> > This isn't specific to this topic? I don't really understand why this
> > specific feature gets to avoid normal community development processes?
>
> What is being avoided?
You previously pushed a patch without tests, now you want to push a
patch that was barely reviewed and also doesn't contain an explanation
of the design. I mean:
> > > You have to understand cryptography and Postgres internals to understand
> > > the design, and I don't think it is realistic to explain that all to the
> > > community. We did much of this in voice calls over months because it
> > > was too much of a burden to explain all the cryptographic details so
> > > everyone could follow along.
really is very far from the normal community process. Again, how is this
supposed to be maintained in the future, if it's based on a design
that's only understandable to the people on those phone calls?
> > We have had perl tap tests for quite a while now? And all new tests that
> > aren't regression / isolation tests are expected to be written in it.
>
> What Perl tap tests run initdb and manage the cluster? I didn't find
> any.
find . -name '*.pl'|xargs grep 'use PostgresNode;'
should give you a nearly complete list.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Key management with tests
In-Reply-To: <20210116042036.cpuadvs2bdbsblia@alap3.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox