On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's not an issue for me to rebase this set of patches. The only > conflicts that I anticipate are on 0009, but I don't have high hopes > to get this portion integrating into core for 9.6, the rest of the > patches is complicated enough, and everyone bandwidth is limited.
I really think we ought to consider pushing this whole thing out to 9.7. I don't see how we're going to get all of this into 9.6, and these are big, user-facing changes that I don't think we should rush into under time pressure. I think it'd be better to do this early in the 9.7 cycle so that it has time to settle before the time crunch at the end. I predict this is going to have a lot of loose ends that are going to take months to settle, and we don't have that time right now. And I'd rather see all of the changes in one release than split them across two releases. -- 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
