> On 25 Aug 2026, at 18:48, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> #2 has been cut back in scope enough that I don't think we would have accepted > the feature originally if it had been subject to those limitations, which IMHO > is a reasonable argument for a revert but also not conclusive. I don't think that is an argument for reverting, I think it's an argument for blocking progress by making perfect the enemy of good. > I'm pretty scared about all of #1-#3 having a long tail of bugs that we > haven't > found yet, in pretty critical areas. I'll prepare a revert. -- Daniel Gustafsson
