On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > More generally, I don't think there's ever a > > time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at > > least some effort into fixing up afterwards. > > Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found > now exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for > a stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been > putting in". I think it's clear that Kevin is willing to put in some > work. The issue is that he is unable to *guarantee* that he'll be able > to put in *sufficient* time, and in light of that concedes that it > might be best to revert and revisit for Postgres 11. He is being > cautious, and does not want to *risk* unduly holding up the release. > > That was my understanding, at least.
I think we can all agree that Kevin should have communicated this earlier, rather than requiring Robert to push him on the issue. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
