On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Adam Brightwell
<adam.brightwell@crunchydatasolutions.com> wrote:
>> Given that no fewer than four people - all committers - have expressed
>> doubts about the design of this patch, I wonder why you're bothering
>> to post a new version.
>
> I understand and my intent was in no way to disregard those concerns. The
> only reason that I have posted a new version was simply to address some
> minor issues that I noticed when responding to Peter's earlier comment about
> missing files.
>
>> It seems to me that you should be discussing
>> the fundamental design, not making minor updates to the code.
>
> Ok. I'm certainly looking at the other options proposed and will work with
> Stephen to put together an appropriate design for discussion here.
>
>> I really hope this is not moving in the direction of another "surprise
>> commit" like we had with RLS. There is absolutely NOT consensus on
>> this design or anything close to it.
>
> Certainly not and I am in no way confused that consensus has not been
> reached.
OK, thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
