Hi, On 2018-11-07 14:25:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > We need to move forward, either by undertaking a more extensive > clean-out, or by finding a path to a version of the code that is > satisfactory. > [...] > In short, it seems likely to me that large parts of this patch need to > be pulled out, rewritten, and then put back in different places than > they are today. I'm not sure if a complete revert is the best next > step, or if we can make progress without that.
I think the feature has merit, but I don't think it makes that much sense to start with the current in-tree version. There's just too many architectural issues. So I think we should clean it out as much as we can, and then have the feature re-submitted with proper review etc. Greetings, Andres Freund
