On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > I agree with all of the above. > > In terms of timing of commits, I have marked the patch Ready For > Committer. To me that signifies that it is ready for review by a > Committer prior to commit. > > In case of doubt, I would not even suggest committing this if it had > any concurrency issues. That would be clearly unacceptable. > > The only discussion would be about the word "unfinished". I'm not > clear why this patch, which has current caveats all clearly indicated > in the docs, differs substantially from other projects that have > committed their work ahead of having everything everybody wants, such > as replication, materialized views, parallel query, partitioning, > logical decoding etc.. All of those features had caveats in the first > release in which they were included and many of them were committed > prior to the last CF. We are working now to remove those caveats. Why > is this different? It shouldn't be. If unfinished means it has caveats > that is different to unfinished meaning crappy, risky, contentious > etc..
I think the question is how does it handle cases it doesn't support? Does it give wrong answers? Does it give a helpful error message? Can you summarize that? -- 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 +
