On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas >> Vondra on that thread. > > FWIW, I agree with Peter that we should remove this code. We know that it > is buggy. Leaving it there constitutes an "attractive nuisance" --- that > is, I'm afraid that someone will submit a patch that depends on that > function, and that we might forget that the function is broken and commit > said patch. > > Tomas' objection would be reasonable if a fix was simple, but so far as > I can tell from the thread, it's not. In particular, Peter doesn't trust > the upstream patch in question. But whether or not you trust it, doing > nothing is not a sane choice. The reasonable alternatives are to remove > the merge function or sync the upstream patch.
Now I agree with that. And now we do not have a 1-1 tie on which alternative to prefer, which is a good start towards a consensus. Any other views? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers