Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> David Steele wrote:
>> Are you planning to update this patch? If not, I think it should be
>> marked as Returned with Feedback and submitted to the next CF once it
>> has been updated.
> This is no new development, only code movement. I think it would be
> worse to have three different branches of partitioning code, v10
> "basic", v11 "powerful but not reorganized", v12 "reorganized". I'd
> rather have only v10 "basic" and v11+ "powerful".
> Let's keep this entry open till the last minute.
Nonetheless, it's March 21. David's point is that it's time to get a
move on.
regards, tom lane
