On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexander Korotkov
>> > I'd like to validate that this development plan doesn't overlaps with
>> > your
>> > plans. If out plans are not overlapping then let's accept this plan of
>> > work
>> > for 9.7.
>> It looks OK to me. Thanks for sharing it.
> Great! Let's work together.
So, the last patch on this thread was posted on February 17th, and the
CF entry was marked Waiting on Author on March 2nd. Even if we had a
new patch in hand at this point, I don't think there's any real chance
of being able to get this done for 9.6; there are too many things left
to do here in terms of figuring out syntax and scope, and of course
performance testing. Moreover, when this goes in, it's going to open
up lots of opportunities for follow-up optimizations that we surely do
not have time to follow up on for 9.6. And, as it is, the patch
hasn't been updated in over a month and is clearly not in final form
as it exists today.
Therefore, I have marked this Returned with Feedback. I look forward
to returning to this topic for 9.7, and I'm willing to step up to the
plate and review this more aggressively at that time, with an eye
toward committing it when we've got it in good shape. But I don't
think there's any way to proceed with it for 9.6.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: