On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:16 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > That wasn't my plan, but I admit that the timing was non-ideal. In > any case, I'll dig into these failures and then consider options. > More soon.
Yeah, this clearly needs more work. xlogreader.c is difficult to work with and I think we need to keep trying to improve it, but I made a bad call here trying to combine this with other refactoring work up against a deadline and I made some dumb mistakes. I could of course debug it in-tree, and I know that this has been an anticipated feature. Personally I think the right thing to do now is to revert it and re-propose for 15 early in the cycle, supported with some better testing infrastructure.
I tend to agree with the idea to revert it, perhaps a +0 on that, but if others argue it should be fixed in-place, I wouldn’t complain about it.
I very much encourage the idea of improving testing in this area and would be happy to try and help do so in the 15 cycle.
