On 2017-04-05 09:46:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2017-04-05 00:39:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> but > >> if that's what we're doing, let's make sure we do it consistently. > >> I haven't read the patch, but the comments in this thread make me fear > >> that it's introducing some ad-hoc, inconsistent behavior. > > > I'm a bit worried too due to the time constraints here, but I think > > resetting the clock at Execute too actually makes a fair amount sense. > > Meh. Two days before feature freeze is not the time to be introducing > a rushed redefinition of the wire protocol --- and let's not fool > ourselves, that is what this amounts to. Let's push this out to v11 > and think about it more carefully.
What I was trying to say is that I think the change makes sense and isn't particularly ad-hoc, but that I don't think we need to force this for v10. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
