On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> That's because I believe this is quite broken, as already pointed out. >> >> I think I like your approach better. > > That makes things far simpler, then. > >>> Your premise here is that what Heikki said in passing months ago is >>> incontrovertibly the right approach. That's ridiculous. I think Heikki >>> and I could work this out quite quickly, if he engaged, but for >>> whatever reason he appears unable to. I doubt that Heikki thinks that >>> about what he said, so why do you? >> >> I don't -- I just think you could have sent a patch that addressed all >> the other points, leave this one as initially submitted, and note that >> the new submission left it unaddressed because you disagreed. > > I'll try to do that soon. I've got a very busy schedule over the next > couple of weeks, though.
This patch was reviewed during CF 2016-01 and has not been updated for CF 2016-03. I think we should mark it Returned with Feedback. -- 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
