On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> No, it's far too late to be pushing this into 9.5. We are at RC1 now
> and hoping to cut a final release right after Christmas. I think it's
> quite wrong to argue that these changes have no risk of destabilizing
> 9.5. Nobody is exempt from having bugs in their code - not me, not
> you, not Tom Lane. But quite apart from that, there seems to be no
> compelling benefit to having these changes in 9.5. You say that the
> branches will diverge needlessly, but the whole point of having
> branches is that we do need things to diverge. The question isn't
> "why shouldn't these go into 9.5?" but "do these fix something that is
> clearly broken in 9.5 and must be fixed to avoid hurting users?".
> Andres has said clearly that he doesn't think so, and Heikki didn't
> seem convinced that we wanted the changes at all. I've read over the
> thread and I think that even if all the good things you say about this
> patch are 100% true, it doesn't amount to a good reason to back-patch.
> Code that does something possibly non-sensical or sub-optimal isn't a
> reason to back-patch in the absence of a clear, user-visible
> consequence.
+1. There are folks around doing tests using 9.5 now, it is not
correct to impact the effort they have been putting on it until now.
> I think it's a shame that we haven't gotten this patch dealt with just
> because when somebody submits a patch in June, it's not very nice for
> it to still be pending in December, but since this stuff is even
> further outside my area of expertise than the sorting stuff, and since
> me and my split personalities only have so many hours in the day, I'm
> going to have to leave it to somebody else to pick up anyhow. But
> that's a separate issue from whether this should be back-patched.
Many patches wait in the queue for months, that's not new. Some of
them wait even longer than that.
For those reasons, and because you are willing visibly to still work
on it, I am moving this patch to next CF.
Regards,
--
Michael
