Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Well, I can't do anything about that right now. I won't have the time to
>> whip up the new/more complex API we discussed upthread in the next few
>> days. So either we go with a simpler API (e.g. pretty much a cleaned up
>> version of my earlier patch), revert the postmaster deatch check, or
>> somebody else has to take lead in renovating, or we wait...
> Well, I thought we could just revert the patch until you had time to
> deal with it, and then put it back in. That seemed like a simple and
> practical option from here, and I don't think I quite understand why
> you and Tom don't like it.
Don't particularly want the git history churn, if we expect that the
patch will ship as-committed in 9.6. If it becomes clear that the
performance fix is unlikely to happen, we can revert then.
If the performance change were an issue for a lot of testing, I'd agree
with a temporary revert, but I concur with Andres that it's not blocking
much. Anybody who does have an issue there can revert locally, no?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
