Hi Álvaro, On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
Absolutely. >From my perspective reviving a patch is pretty much always an option. I'm attempting to update patches based on what I see as the current status, but my decision is certainly not final and I do make mistakes. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
