Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
>>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
>>> bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we're
>>> having converging on a default for the regression tests, which are
>>> a far narrower use-case than "everybody".
>> Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is
>> going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't
>> all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do
>> better than what we've got now. +1 for trying.
> Is there any chance we can move forward here, or is this effort doomed for
> now?
It seemed like nobody wanted to try to push this forward, and it will take
somebody actively pushing, IMO, for something to happen.
Perhaps we should first try to get a consensus on the regression test
use-case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
