David Steele wrote: > On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > > The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated, > > but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see > > a need for it beyond that.
> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have > marked this patch Rejected. I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the status of this in detail. I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now, but I reserve the option to revive it in the future. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
