Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> My general point here is that I would like to know whether we have a
> finite number of reasonably localized bugs or a three-ring disaster
> that is unrecoverable no matter what we do. Andres seems to think it
> is the latter, and I *think* Peter Geoghegan agrees, but I think that
> the point might be worth a little more discussion.
TBH, I am not clear on that either.
> I'm unclear whether
> Tom's dislike for the feature represents hostility to the concept -
> with which I would have to disagree - or a judgement on the quality of
> the implementation - which might be justified.
I think it's a klugy, unprincipled solution to a valid real-world
problem. I suspect the implementation issues are not unrelated to
the kluginess of the concept. Thus, I would really like to see us
throw this away and find something better. I admit I have nothing
to offer about what a better solution to the problem would look like.
But I would really like it to not involve random-seeming query failures.
regards, tom lane
