On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
> 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.

+1. We should definitely not encourage its use for 3rd-part plugins.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to