Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > I don't object to the addition of this patch in next CF as this > presents no new concept. Still per the complications this patch and > because it is a complicated patch I was wondering if people are fine > to include it in this last CF.
The March CF is already looking pretty daunting. We can try to include this but I won't be too surprised if it gets punted to a future CF. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers