Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=xN3y-SNP3qMfqpoAcAJBxMARgDBwTWgM59yOT_FdP=w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> More generally, I don't think there's ever a
> time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at
> least some effort into fixing up afterwards.

Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found
now exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for
a stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been
putting in". I think it's clear that Kevin is willing to put in some
work. The issue is that he is unable to *guarantee* that he'll be able
to put in *sufficient* time, and in light of that concedes that it
might be best to revert and revisit for Postgres 11. He is being
cautious, and does not want to *risk* unduly holding up the release.

That was my understanding, at least.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] jsonb_to_tsvector should be immutable