(2018/07/19 17:52), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
>> But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
>> on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My concern is: if we do this
>> refactoring now, we might need two patches for fixing the issue in case of
>> backpatching as the fix might need to change those executor functions.
>
> The only thing in [1] that would conflict with this patch is the 0002
> (and possibly 0001) patch in [2]. We haven't yet decided anything
> about whether those patches can be back-patched or not. I think it's
> going to take much longer time for the actual solution to arise. But
> we don't have to wait for it to commit this patch as well as 0001 and
> 0002 patches in [2]
I've just started catching up the discussions in [1], so I don't think I
understand those fully, but it appears that we haven't yet reached a
consensus on what to do for that issue.
> because a. the larger solution is not likely to be
> back-patchable b. it's going to take much longer time. We don't have
> any estimate about how much longer it's going to take.
I don't understand the solution yet, so I'll study about that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
