Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> In short, I think this is a good idea, and if somebody thinks that we
> should solve the underlying problem instead, I'd like to hear what
> people think a realistic solution might be. Because to me, it looks
> like we're refusing to commit a patch that probably took an hour to
> write because with 10 years of engineering effort we could *maybe* fix
> the root cause.
Maybe the original patch took an hour to write, but it's sure been
bikeshedded to death :-(. I was complaining about the total amount
of attention spent more than the patch itself.
The patch of record seems to be v4 from 2022-01-13, which was failing
in cfbot at last report but presumably could be fixed easily. The
proposed documentation's grammar is pretty shaky, but I don't see
much else wrong in a quick eyeball scan.
regards, tom lane
