On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 07:19:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I agree with all that.

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

Reply via email to