Craig Ringer wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 13:03, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com.br> wrote: > > > Question is: is the actual code so useless that it can't even be a 1.0 > > release? > > What's committed suffers from a design problem and cannot work correctly, > nor can it be fixed without an API change and significant revision. The > revised version I posted yesterday is that fix, but it's new code just > before beta1. It's pretty much equivalent to reverting the original patch > and then adding a new, corrected implementation. If considered as a new > feature it'd never be accepted at this stage of the release.
To make it worse, we don't have test code for a portion of the new functionality: it turned out that the test module only tests half of it. And in order to test the other half, we have a pending patch for some pg_recvlogical changes, but we still don't have the actual test script. So we would need to 1. commit the pg_recvlogical patch, assuming it's OK now. 2. write the test script to use that 3. commit the fix patch written a few days ago (which is still unreviewed). We could also commit the fix without the test, but that doesn't seem a great idea. As Craig, I am not happy with this outcome. But realistically I think it's the best decision at this point. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
