Greetings, On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 19:17 Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:16 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > That wasn't my plan, but I admit that the timing was non-ideal. In > > any case, I'll dig into these failures and then consider options. > > More soon. > > Yeah, this clearly needs more work. xlogreader.c is difficult to work > with and I think we need to keep trying to improve it, but I made a > bad call here trying to combine this with other refactoring work up > against a deadline and I made some dumb mistakes. I could of course > debug it in-tree, and I know that this has been an anticipated > feature. Personally I think the right thing to do now is to revert it > and re-propose for 15 early in the cycle, supported with some better > testing infrastructure. I tend to agree with the idea to revert it, perhaps a +0 on that, but if others argue it should be fixed in-place, I wouldn’t complain about it. I very much encourage the idea of improving testing in this area and would be happy to try and help do so in the 15 cycle. Thanks, Stephen >
