Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Now it's not really KaiGai-san's fault; >> the fundamental problem IMHO is that no one else is taking very much >> interest in the patch. But that in itself speaks volumes about whether >> we actually want this patch or should accept it.
> Are you sure that this isn't just because the original patch was so > enormous? If you're referring to reviewing, it's certainly easier to > find someone willing to review a 100-line patch than it is to find > someone willing to review a 10,000-line patch. Well, the huge size of the original patch didn't help any, for sure. But the nature of this type of problem --- particularly given the not-designed-for-it architecture we have --- is that there are going to be a lot of subtle issues and very probably a lot of places to touch. It gets even worse if you want to put performance constraints on the result. I will not have any confidence in SEPostgres until both the design and the code details have been reviewed by a fair number of experienced PG hackers; and what I see happening is that there simply aren't enough of them who care. If it were a small localized patch I might not particularly care ... but what I'm afraid of is that we'll have a monstrous patch that does severe damage to readability and modifiability of the backend, and has a bunch of bugs to boot (every one of which will qualify as a security issue when it's discovered). And on top of that, I'm still not sold that there is enough of a user base for it to justify the effort we'll have to put into it. If there were, we'd be seeing more interest in reviewing it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers