Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 06:44, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>>> * Simplify some RI checks to reduce SPI overhead
>> Move to next; a lot more work is required.
> If it's going to be part of a much larger patch set I wonder if it
> shouldn't just be marked Rejected and start a new thread and new CF
> entry for the whole suite.
IMV, "rejected" means "we don't want this patch nor any plausible
rework of it". In this case, the feedback is more like "why aren't
we changing all of ri_triggers this way", so I'd call it RWF.
>>> * Map WAL segment files on PMEM as WAL buffers
>>> * Support custom authentication methods using hooks
>>> * Implement INSERT SET syntax
>>> * Logical insert/update/delete WAL records for custom table AMs
>> New features.
> Yeah, this bunch definitely consists of new features, just not sure if
> they should be moved forward or Rejected or RWF.
Probably just move them forward. The only one of these four that's
been really sitting around for a long time is INSERT SET, and I think
there we've just not quite made up our minds if we want it or not.
regards, tom lane
