Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
> Vondra on that thread.
FWIW, I agree with Peter that we should remove this code. We know that it
is buggy. Leaving it there constitutes an "attractive nuisance" --- that
is, I'm afraid that someone will submit a patch that depends on that
function, and that we might forget that the function is broken and commit
said patch.
Tomas' objection would be reasonable if a fix was simple, but so far as
I can tell from the thread, it's not. In particular, Peter doesn't trust
the upstream patch in question. But whether or not you trust it, doing
nothing is not a sane choice. The reasonable alternatives are to remove
the merge function or sync the upstream patch.
regards, tom lane
