On 09/23/2017 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> The immediate question is do we care to design/implement such a thing
>>> post-RC1.  I'd have to vote "no".  I think the most prudent thing to
>>> do is revert 15bc038f9 and then have another go at it during the v11
>>> cycle.
>> Sadly I agree. We've made decisions like this in the past, and I have
>> generally been supportive of them. I think this is the first time I have
>> been on the receiving end of one so late in the process :-(
> Unless you want to try writing a patch for this in the next day or two,
> I think we have to do that.  But now that I see the plan clearly, maybe
> we could get away with a post-RC1 fix.

OK, I'll give it a shot.



Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to