On 04/26/2016 07:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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?
I haven't followed this issue all that closely, but to me it seems pretty clear. If the function is brand new to 9.6, buggy, and not even used anywhere, I cannot imagine why we would leave it in the tree. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature