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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
