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

Reply via email to