On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I assume that the problem here is larger than just failure to adhere to >> C89 comment style. Was this patch really ready to commit? I'm not very >> happy that such a large patch went from "Needs review" to "Committed" in >> the blink of an eye on the very last commitfest day ... and artifacts like >> this aren't doing anything to increase my confidence in it. > > +1. I wonder if this should be reverted entirely.
I really wish I could have done more to help with this, but I didn't do enough soon enough. Regrettably, I think that the patch just isn't ready. For example, the way that expression indexes just aren't handled is a cause for concern, as is the general way in which high keys are modified during index builds. Interactions with logical decoding are also a concern; there could be significant issues there, but that analysis just didn't happen. I had significant misunderstandings about the patch as recently as this week. This should be reverted. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
