On 2016-05-03 10:12:51 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature. Craig > > was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical > > changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking > > ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts > > that would use it. Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit > > rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that > > we can revisit it for 9.7. > > I think it's a positive development that we can take this attitude to > reverting patches. It should not be seen as a big personal failure, > because it isn't. Stigmatizing reverts incentivizes behavior that > leads to bad outcomes.
+1 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
