David Steele wrote:
> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge,
> > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly.
> > The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,
> > but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
> > a need for it beyond that.
> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
> marked this patch Rejected.
I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the
status of this in detail. I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now,
but I reserve the option to revive it in the future.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
