Horton

Re: Key management with tests

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-01-16T04:20:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.

  2. pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.

  3. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  4. Fix for new Boolean node

  5. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  6. Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence

  7. Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.

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