On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:09 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > 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.
FWIW, there is a patch implementing just unnest() function. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
multirange_unnest-v7.patch
Description: Binary data
