On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge,
>>> it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly.
>>> The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,
>>> but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
>>> a need for it beyond that.
>> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
>> marked this patch Rejected.
> I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the
> status of this in detail. I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now,
> but I reserve the option to revive it in the future.
>From my perspective reviving a patch is pretty much always an option.
I'm attempting to update patches based on what I see as the current
status, but my decision is certainly not final and I do make mistakes.