Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > In short, I think this is a good idea, and if somebody thinks that we > should solve the underlying problem instead, I'd like to hear what > people think a realistic solution might be. Because to me, it looks > like we're refusing to commit a patch that probably took an hour to > write because with 10 years of engineering effort we could *maybe* fix > the root cause.
Maybe the original patch took an hour to write, but it's sure been bikeshedded to death :-(. I was complaining about the total amount of attention spent more than the patch itself. The patch of record seems to be v4 from 2022-01-13, which was failing in cfbot at last report but presumably could be fixed easily. The proposed documentation's grammar is pretty shaky, but I don't see much else wrong in a quick eyeball scan. regards, tom lane