Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Andrew Gierth
> <> 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.

FWIW, this thread started on 25-July, less than two weeks ago.  I've been
fully engaged in either stabilizing 9.6 or doing necessary back-branch
maintenance since then (including, I might add, putting in full days both
days this weekend).  There has not been time to work on this request, and
as far as I've seen from the thread we are not very close to a consensus
on what the API details should be anyway.

Had the complaint been raised sooner, maybe there would've been time
to get a well-thought-out API into 9.6.  The fact that it wasn't raised
till more than 6 months after we committed the pg_am changes, and more
than 2 months after 9.6beta1 was released, makes me feel that it's not
all that critical a problem.

Having said all that, it is unfortunate that 9.6 is going to go out
without any good solution to this need.  But as Robert already pointed
out, trying to fix it now would force delaying 9.6rc1 by several weeks
(and that's assuming that it doesn't take very long to get consensus
on a solution).  There's not, AFAICT, desire on the part of the release
team to do that.  We'd like to ship 9.6 on time for a change.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to