On 3/24/16 10:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
1) It's a great feature many users dream about.
Doesn't matter if it starts eating their data...
2) Patch is not very big. 3) Patch doesn't introduce significant infrastructural changes. It just change some well-isolated placed.
It doesn't really matter how big the patch is, it's a question of "What did the patch fail to consider?". With something as complicated as the btree code, there's ample opportunities for missing things. (And FWIW, I'd argue that a 51kB patch is certainly not small, and a patch that is doing things in critical sections isn't terribly isolated).
I do think this will be a great addition, but it's just too late to be adding this to 9.6.
(BTW, I'm getting bounces from a.lebe...@postgrespro.ru, as well as postmaster@. I emailed i...@postgrespro.ru about this but never heard back.)
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
