Hi, On 2024-04-15 16:02:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 3:47 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > That said, I don't like the state after applying > > https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdvuT6DnguzaV-M1UQ2whYGDojaNU%3D-%3DiHc0A7qo9HBEJw%40mail.gmail.com > > because there's too much coupling. Hence talking about needing to iterate on > > the interface in some form, earlier in the thread. > > Mmph, I can't follow what the actual state of things is here. Are we > waiting for Alexander to push that patch? Is he waiting for somebody > to sign off on that patch?
I think Alexander is arguing that we shouldn't revert 27bc1772fc & dd1f6b0c17 in 17. I already didn't think that was an option, because I didn't like the added interfaces, but now am even more certain, given how broken dd1f6b0c17 seems to be: https://postgr.es/m/20240415201057.khoyxbwwxfgzomeo%40awork3.anarazel.de > Do you want that patch applied, not applied, or applied with some set of > modifications? I think we should apply Alexander's proposed revert and then separately discuss what we should do about 041b96802ef. > I find the discussion of "too much coupling" too abstract. I want to > get down to specific proposals for what we should change, or not > change. I think it's a bit hard to propose something concrete until we've decided whether we'll revert 27bc1772fc & dd1f6b0c17. Greetings, Andres Freund
