On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:36:13PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > Thank you all for the reviews, feedback, tests, criticism. And apologies for > keep pushing it till the last minute even though it was clear to me quite some > time back the patch is not going to make it. But if I'd given up, it would > have > never received whatever little attention it got. The only thing that > disappoints me is that the patch was held back on no strong technical grounds > - > at least none were clear to me. There were concerns about on-disk changes > etc, > but most on-disk changes were known for 7 months now. Reminds me of HOT > development, when it would not receive adequate feedback for quite many > months, > probably for very similar reasons - complex patch, changes on-disk format, > risky, even though performance gains were quite substantial. I was much more > hopeful this time because we have many more experts now as compared to then, > but we probably have equally more amount of complex patches to review/commit.
I am sad to see WARM didn't make it into Postgres 10, but I agree deferment was the right decision, as painful as that is. We now have something to look forward to in Postgres 11. :-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
