On 7 April 2018 at 18:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> My point was that people didn't ask you to work harder on fixing the >>> patch, but in reverting it. You can work harder on fixing things in the >>> hope they change their minds, but again, that isn't addressing their >>> request. > >> If Tom or Andres still feel that their concerns have not been >> addressed over the last few days, I am happy to revert the patch with >> no further discussion from me in this cycle. > > FWIW, I still vote to revert. Even if the patch were now perfect, > there is not time for people to satisfy themselves of that, and > we've got lots of other things on our plates. > > I'd be glad to participate in a proper review of this when v12 > opens. But right now it just seems too rushed, and I have little > confidence in it being right. > > regards, tom lane > > PS: If you do revert, please wrap it up as a single revert commit, > not a series of half a dozen. You've already put several > non-buildable states into the commit history as a result of this > patch, each one of which is a land mine for git bisect testing. > We don't need more of those. Also, looking at the reverse of the > reversion commit will provide a handy way of seeing the starting > point for future discussion of this patch.
Will do. "Commence primary ignition." -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services