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. cheers andrew -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
