Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on >>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular >>> bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we're >>> having converging on a default for the regression tests, which are >>> a far narrower use-case than "everybody".
>> Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is >> going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't >> all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do >> better than what we've got now. +1 for trying. > Is there any chance we can move forward here, or is this effort doomed for > now? It seemed like nobody wanted to try to push this forward, and it will take somebody actively pushing, IMO, for something to happen. Perhaps we should first try to get a consensus on the regression test use-case. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers