On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 12:33 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2020-04-03 14:32:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Agreed, but OTOH, not giving time to Kevin or others who might be > > interested to support this work is also not fair. I think once > > somebody comes up with patches for problems we can decide whether this > > feature can be salvaged in back-branches or we need to disable it in a > > hard-way. Now, if Kevin himself is not interested in fixing or nobody > > shows up to help, then surely we can take the decision sooner but > > giving time for a couple of weeks (or even till we are near for PG13 > > release) in this case doesn't seem like a bad idea. > > It'd certainly be great if somebody came up with fixes, yes. Even if we > had to disable it in the back branches, that'd allow us to keep the > feature around, at least. > > The likelihood of regressions even when the feature is not on does not > seem that low. >
Yeah, that is the key point. IIRC, when this feature got added Kevin and others spent a lot of effort to ensure that point. > But you're right, we'll be able to better judge it with > fixes to look at. > I am hoping Kevin would take the lead and then others also can help. Kevin, please do let us know if you are *not* planning to work on the issues raised in this thread so that we can think of an alternative? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
