On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 14:05, Nikita Malakhov <huku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > I have a question for the community - why was this patch silently put to a > "rejected" status? > Should there no be some kind of explanation? > > During this discussion I got the impression that for some reason some members > of the community > do not want the TOAST functionality, which has such drawbacks that make it > really a curse for > in many ways very good DBMS, to be touched. We cannot get rid of it because > of backwards > compatibility, so the best way is to make it more adaptable and extensible - > this is what this thread > is about. We proposed our vision on how to extend the TOAST Postgres-way, > like Pluggable > Storage some time before. > > There are some very complex subjects left in this topic that really need a > community' attention. > I've mentioned them above, but there was no feedback on them. > > Pavel, we've already had an update implementation for TOAST. But it is a part > of a Pluggable > TOAST and it hardly would be here without it. I've started another thread on > extending the TOAST > pointer, maybe you would want to participate there [1]. > > We still would be grateful for feedback. > > [1] Extending the TOAST Pointer I don't see a clear reason it's rejected, besides technically it's Waiting on Author since January. If it's a mistake and the patch is up-to-date you can set an appropriate status.
Regards, Pavel Borisov, Supabase.
