Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:51 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So, it's well over a year later, and so far as I can see exactly
>> nothing has been done about snapshot_too_old's problems.
> I propose that the revert question be explicitly timeboxed. If the
> issues haven't been fixed by some date, then "snapshot too old"
> automatically gets reverted without further discussion. This gives
> qualified hackers the opportunity to save the feature if they feel
> strongly about it, and are actually willing to take responsibility for
> its ongoing maintenance.
The goal I have in mind is for snapshot_too_old to be fixed or gone
in v15. I don't feel a need to force the issue sooner than that, so
there's plenty of time for someone to step up, if anyone wishes to.
I imagine that we should just ignore the question of whether anything
can be done for it in the back branches. Given the problems
identified upthread, fixing it in a non-back-patchable way would be
challenging enough.
regards, tom lane
