On 11 May 2018 at 05:32, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2018-05-10 23:25:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > I still don't think, as commented upon by Tom and me upthread, that we >> > want this feature in the current form. >> >> Was this concern ever addressed, or did the patch just get committed anyway? > > No. Simon just claimed it's not actually a concern: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/canp8+j+vtskphep_gmqmeqdwakst2kbotee0yz-my+agh0a...@mail.gmail.com > > And yes, it got committed without doing squat to address the > architectural concerns.
"Squat" means "zero, nothing" to me. So that comment would be inaccurate. I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing and grooming the patch, and I am happy that Konstantin has changed his patch significantly in response to those reviews, as well as explaining why the patch is fine as it is. It's a useful patch that PostgreSQL needs, so all good. I have no problem if you want to replace this with an even better design in a later release. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
