Hi, On 2022-06-15 22:23:36 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: > I'm not entirely against you on that, but it makes me cringe that we impose > design decisions like that on any and all future TAMs. It seems better to > me to let the TAM author decide to emit an error, warning, notice, or > whatever, as they see fit.
The tradeoff is that that pushes down complexity and makes the overall system harder to understand. I'm not saying that there's no possible use for such callbacks / configurability, I'm just not convinced it's worth the cost. > >> But I can't really complete my work with the interface as it stands > >> now. > > > > Since you've not described that work to a meaningful degree... > > I don't think I should have to do so. It's like saying, "I think I should > have freedom of speech", and you say, "well, I'm not sure about that; tell > me what you want to say, and I'll decide if I'm going to let you say it".' > That's not freedom. I think TAM authors should have broad discretion over > anything that the core system doesn't have a compelling interest in > controlling. That's insultingly ridiculous. You can say, do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean I have to be convinced by it (i.e. +1 adding an API) - that'd be compelled speech, to go with your image... It's utterly normal to be asked what the use case for a new API is when proposing one. > You've not yet said why a TAM should be prohibited from opting > out of cluster/vacfull. API / behavioural complexity. If we make ever nook and cranny configurable, we'll have an ever harder to use / administer system (from a user's POV) and have difficulty understanding the state of the system when writing patches (from a core PG developer's POV). It might be the right thing in this case - hence me asking for what the motivation is. Greetings, Andres Freund