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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to