On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:36 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. I think we should revert it. IMHO it was > > a nice clean example of a streaming transformation, but unfortunately > > it transformed an API that nobody liked in the first place, and broke > > some weird and wonderful workarounds. Let's try again in 18. > > The problem I have with this is that we just released RC1. I suppose > if we have to make this change it's better to do it sooner than later, > but are we sure we want to whack this around this close to final > release?
I hear you. But I definitely don't want to (and likely can't at this point) make any of the other proposed changes, and I also don't want to break Timescale. That seems to leave only one option: go back to the v16 API for RC2, and hope that the ongoing table AM discussions for v18 (CF #4866) will fix all the problems for the people whose TAMs don't quack like a "heap", and the people whose TAMs do and who would not like to duplicate the code, and the people who want streaming I/O.
