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