On 2016/03/22 4:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.

OK. I agree with the decision.

Actually, I was just about to post a patch set today, but I figure it's
too late for that.  Anyway, I look forward to working on this for 9.7.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to