On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 11:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Yeah, that's one of the reasons I'm dubious that the committed
> >> patch was ready.
>
> > While inventing this GUC, I was thinking more about avoiding
> > regressions rather than about unleashing the full power of this
> > optimization. But now I see that that wasn't good enough. And it was
> > definitely hasty to commit to this shape. I apologize for this.
>
> > Tom, I think you are way more experienced in this codebase than me.
> > And, probably more importantly, more experienced in making decisions
> > for planner development. If you see some way forward to polish this
> > post-commit, Andrei and I are ready to work hard on this with you. If
> > you don't see (or don't think that's good), let's revert this.
>
> It wasn't ready to commit, and I think trying to fix it up post
> feature freeze isn't appropriate project management. Let's revert
> it and work on it more in the v18 time frame.
Ok, let's do this. I'd like to hear from you some directions for
further development of this patch if possible.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
