Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> I am not a fan of introducing a replacement feature based on what I
> consider too limited testing, and I don't feel this one has been beat on
> long yet enough to start pruning features that would allow better backward
> compatibility/transitioning. I think that's introducing an unnecessary
> risk to the design.
While it's certainly true that we could do with wider testing of this
patch, I'm not sure why you hold such strong allegiance to the status
quo. We know that the status quo isn't working very well. And if you
think that the current code had enormous amounts of testing before it
went in, I've got to disillusion you :-(
regards, tom lane
