On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I assume that the problem here is larger than just failure to adhere to
>> C89 comment style. Was this patch really ready to commit? I'm not very
>> happy that such a large patch went from "Needs review" to "Committed" in
>> the blink of an eye on the very last commitfest day ... and artifacts like
>> this aren't doing anything to increase my confidence in it.
>
> +1. I wonder if this should be reverted entirely.
I really wish I could have done more to help with this, but I didn't
do enough soon enough. Regrettably, I think that the patch just isn't
ready. For example, the way that expression indexes just aren't
handled is a cause for concern, as is the general way in which high
keys are modified during index builds. Interactions with logical
decoding are also a concern; there could be significant issues there,
but that analysis just didn't happen. I had significant
misunderstandings about the patch as recently as this week.
This should be reverted.
--
Peter Geoghegan
