On 2022-08-23 Tu 15:32, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 8/23/22 1:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2022-08-23 13:18:49 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: >>> Taking RMT hat off, if the outcome is "revert", I do want to ensure >>> we don't >>> lose momentum on getting this into v16. I know a lot of time and >>> effort has >>> gone into this featureset and it seems to be trending in the right >>> direction. We have a mixed history on reverts in terms of if/when >>> they are >>> committed and I don't want to see that happen to these features. I >>> do think >>> this will remain a headline feature even if we delay it for v16. >> >> We could decide to revert this for 15, but leave it in tree for HEAD. > > If it comes to that, I think that is a reasonable suggestion so long > as we're committed to making the requisite changes. > >
One good reason for this is that way we're not fighting against the node changes, which complicate any reversion significantly. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
