On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 10:05:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes: > > I also don't feel comfortable hurrying with unnest part to beta2. > > According to the open items wiki page, there should be beta3. Does > > unnest part have a chance for beta3? > > Hm. I'd prefer to avoid another forced initdb after beta2. On the > other hand, it's entirely likely that there will be some other thing > that forces that; in which case there'd be no reason not to push in > the unnest feature as well. > > I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what > happens.
I think $SUBJECT can't simultaneously offer too little to justify its own catversion bump and also offer enough to bypass feature freeze. If multirange is good without $SUBJECT, then $SUBJECT should wait for v15. Otherwise, the matter of the catversion bump should not delay commit of $SUBJECT.
