Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:15:43 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
	jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: proposal: schema variables
Message-ID: <Z46u79BCvRKgAWLk@momjian.us>
References: <Z4pmKI2yodbDn5vw@momjian.us>
 <202501171447.ujcoco7hy4oh@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202501171447.ujcoco7hy4oh@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z46u79BCvRKgAWLk%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

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  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.