On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:32:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any other votes out there? > > > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close > > to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would > > be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this. > > I'll take the blame for (most of) yesterday's failures in the v10 > branch, but they were unrelated to this patch --- they were because > of that SIGBUS patch I messed up. So that doesn't seem like a very > applicable argument. Still, it's true that this seems like the most > consequential patch that's gone into v10 post-RC1, certainly so if > you discount stuff that was back-patched further than v10.
Oh, I couldn't untangle that the regression failures were unrelated to enums, so please ignore my opinion. -- 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
