On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: > Anyway, what I haven't seen in this thread is any implementable > counter-proposal other than the "just hardcode the name 'btree'" > response that was given in the JDBC thread, which I don't consider > acceptable in any sense. Is 9.6 going to go out like this or is action > going to be taken before rc1?
Well, at this point, I think 9.6 is going to go out like this, unless Tom is willing to do something today. Multiple people have expressed clear support for adding something along the lines you've suggested, I too am in favor, and I think it's unfortunate that Tom didn't do something about it before now. But I'm neither willing to commit a patch to fix the day before rc1 nor to argue that the whole release cycle should be put back by several weeks on account of this issue. Once we open the tree for 10, I'm willing to pick this up if nobody else has gotten to it before then. I realize that's probably not the answer you were hoping for, and I'm sorry about that. -- 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
