Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any other votes out there? > > > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > > to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would > > be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this. > > I'll take the blame for (most of) yesterday's failures in the v10 > branch, but they were unrelated to this patch --- they were because > of that SIGBUS patch I messed up. So that doesn't seem like a very > applicable argument. Still, it's true that this seems like the most > consequential patch that's gone into v10 post-RC1, certainly so if > you discount stuff that was back-patched further than v10.
I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place? Will pulling it out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump? If we can pull it out without bumping catversion and with confidence that it won't cause more problems then, as much as I hate it, I'm inclined to say we pull it out and come back to it in v11. I really don't like the idea of a post-rc1 catversion bump and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution here that doesn't involve more changes and most likely a catversion bump. If it was reasonably fixable with only small/local changes and without a catversion bump then I'd be more inclined to keep it, but I gather from the discussion that's not the case. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature