On 14 July 2015 at 15:32, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 13 July 2015 at 14:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> TBH, I think the right thing to do at this point is to revert the entire > >> patch and send it back for ground-up rework. I think the high-level > >> design is wrong in many ways and I have about zero confidence in most > >> of the code details as well. > > > There are no issues relating to security or data loss, just various > fixable > > issues in a low-impact feature, which in my view is an important feature > > also. > > There is a *very large* amount of work needed here, and I do not hear you > promising to do it.
I thought I had done so clearly enough, happy to do so again. I promise that either work will be done, or the patch will be reverted. Since I have more time now, I view that as a realistic prospect. > What I'm hearing is stonewalling, and I am not happy. > I'm not sure what you mean by that but it sounds negative and is almost certainly not justified, in this or other cases. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
