On Sat, Apr  8, 2017 at 11:36:13PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Thank you all for the  reviews, feedback, tests, criticism. And apologies for
> keep pushing it till the last minute even though it was clear to me quite some
> time back the patch is not going to make it. But if I'd given up, it would 
> have
> never received whatever little attention it got. The only thing that
> disappoints me is that the patch was held back on no strong technical grounds 
> -
>  at least none were clear to me. There were concerns about on-disk changes 
> etc,
> but most on-disk changes were known for 7 months now. Reminds me of HOT
> development, when it would not receive adequate feedback for quite many 
> months,
> probably for very similar reasons - complex patch, changes on-disk format,
> risky, even though performance gains were quite substantial. I was much more
> hopeful this time because we have many more experts now as compared to then,
> but we probably have equally more amount of complex patches to review/commit.

I am sad to see WARM didn't make it into Postgres 10, but I agree
deferment was the right decision, as painful as that is.  We now have
something to look forward to in Postgres 11.  :-)

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

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

Reply via email to