Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Given this I think the appropriate state of the CF entry would have been > waiting-for-author, not needs review. Or alternatively > returned-with-feedback or rejected. I'm a bit confused as to why the > patch was moved to the next CF twice?
We have this review from Antonin, and mine in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2906.1542395026%40sss.pgh.pa.us and there's the cfbot report that the patch doesn't even apply anymore. The dummy-relation stuff I referred to has now been merged, so there's really no good reason not to revise the patch along that line. I'm going to go set this CF entry to waiting-for-author, but unless a rewritten patch appears soon, I think we should close it returned-with-feedback. I think the idea is potentially good, but as I said in my review, I don't like this implementation; it has the potential to be a net loss in some cases. regards, tom lane
