Hi Amit, On 2023-Mar-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote: > > Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the > > notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1] > > has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that > > doesn't require hacking up the pruning code. > > Hmm, that's indeed tempting. We have an open item about this, and I see no reason not to do it. I checked, and putting things back is just a matter of reverting 589bb816499e and ec386948948, cleaning up some trivial pgindent-induced conflicts, and bumping catversion once more. Would you like to do that yourself, or do you prefer that I do it? Ideally, we'd do it before beta1. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
