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.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to