Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I have stated previously my opinion that this is a misconceived feature,
>> and it's now apparent that the implementation is as poorly thought
>> through as the definition. My recommendation is to revert that patch
>> altogether.
> IIRC, quite a few people voiced support for this feature, so I think
> that ripping it out because you don't personally like it is not a good
> solution.
I will not stand in the way of someone else coming up with a less broken
implementation. But as you've noted, that seems to be a somewhat less
than trivial project. And time grows short. I don't think it's
unreasonable at all to pull this feature from 9.1 and let someone who
cares about it submit a rewritten patch for 9.2.
regards, tom lane
