On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > What I'm hearing is a whole lot of hypothesizing and zero evidence of > actual field requirements. On the other side of the coin, we've already > wasted significant person-hours on fixing this feature's memory leakage, > and now people are proposing to expend more effort on solving^Wpapering > over its performance issues by adding yet more user-visible complication. > It's already adding too much user-visible complication IMO --- I know > because I was just copy-editing the documentation about that yesterday. > > I say it's time to stop the bleeding and rip it out. When and if > there are actual field requests to have a way to do this, we can > discuss what's the best way to respond to those requests. Hacking > VACUUM probably isn't the best answer, anyway. But right now, > we are past feature freeze, and I think we ought to jettison this > one rather than quickly kluge something.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. -1 from me. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
