On 06.04.22 11:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We could also move forward with this patch independently of the other
> one. If we end up reverting the other one, then this one won't be very
> useful but it won't really hurt anything and it would presumably become
> useful eventually. What we presumably don't want is that the sequence
> replication patch gets repaired for PG15 and we didn't end up committing
> this patch because of uncertainty.
I have received some encouragement off-list to go ahead with this, so
it's been committed.
