On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Adam Brightwell <adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com> wrote: >> Given that no fewer than four people - all committers - have expressed >> doubts about the design of this patch, I wonder why you're bothering >> to post a new version. > > I understand and my intent was in no way to disregard those concerns. The > only reason that I have posted a new version was simply to address some > minor issues that I noticed when responding to Peter's earlier comment about > missing files. > >> It seems to me that you should be discussing >> the fundamental design, not making minor updates to the code. > > Ok. I'm certainly looking at the other options proposed and will work with > Stephen to put together an appropriate design for discussion here. > >> I really hope this is not moving in the direction of another "surprise >> commit" like we had with RLS. There is absolutely NOT consensus on >> this design or anything close to it. > > Certainly not and I am in no way confused that consensus has not been > reached.
OK, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
