Hi,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 09:29:02AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:39:15AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-12-16 16:33:17 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Andres, Michael, let me try to sum up my understanding of the current state
> and see how we could now move forward.
>
> First of all, I understand that you both think that the patch outcome will be
> useful to have. The current debate is about the design, the current status is:
>
> - Andres raised specific technical/implementation concerns and I've proposed
> solutions in [1]. It also looks like Andres supports the overall design approach.
> - Michael is not really ok with the current design approach.
>
> That means, that with the current design in place, Michael would probably not
> commit it (even after review(s)).
>
> Given that I'm also in favor of the current proposed design, this raises the
> questions:
>
> - Andres, would you commit such a patch (after review iteration(s) of course)?
> - Michael, if Andres is ok with the above, would you still offer your help for the
> review part (even if the design is not what you "prefer"/"like")?
>
> [1]: https://postgr.es/m/aUEyzoOJtrCLAEeT%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
PFA, tiny rebase due to 9842e8aca09.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
