On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:36 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. I think we should revert it. IMHO it was
> > a nice clean example of a streaming transformation, but unfortunately
> > it transformed an API that nobody liked in the first place, and broke
> > some weird and wonderful workarounds. Let's try again in 18.
>
> The problem I have with this is that we just released RC1. I suppose
> if we have to make this change it's better to do it sooner than later,
> but are we sure we want to whack this around this close to final
> release?
I hear you. But I definitely don't want to (and likely can't at this
point) make any of the other proposed changes, and I also don't want
to break Timescale. That seems to leave only one option: go back to
the v16 API for RC2, and hope that the ongoing table AM discussions
for v18 (CF #4866) will fix all the problems for the people whose TAMs
don't quack like a "heap", and the people whose TAMs do and who would
not like to duplicate the code, and the people who want streaming I/O.
