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. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers