On 7 April 2018 at 18:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> My point was that people didn't ask you to work harder on fixing the
>>> patch, but in reverting it. You can work harder on fixing things in the
>>> hope they change their minds, but again, that isn't addressing their
>>> request.
>
>> If Tom or Andres still feel that their concerns have not been
>> addressed over the last few days, I am happy to revert the patch with
>> no further discussion from me in this cycle.
>
> FWIW, I still vote to revert. Even if the patch were now perfect,
> there is not time for people to satisfy themselves of that, and
> we've got lots of other things on our plates.
>
> I'd be glad to participate in a proper review of this when v12
> opens. But right now it just seems too rushed, and I have little
> confidence in it being right.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> PS: If you do revert, please wrap it up as a single revert commit,
> not a series of half a dozen. You've already put several
> non-buildable states into the commit history as a result of this
> patch, each one of which is a land mine for git bisect testing.
> We don't need more of those. Also, looking at the reverse of the
> reversion commit will provide a handy way of seeing the starting
> point for future discussion of this patch.
Will do.
"Commence primary ignition."
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
