On 10/2/22 8:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 02:11:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>>> OK. For v15 I am heavily in favor for the least risky approach given the
>>> point we are at in the release cycle. The RMT hasn’t met yet to discuss,
>>> but from re-reading this thread again, I would recommend to revert
>>> (i.e. the “straight up revert”).
>>
>> OK by me.
>
> I don't quite see why it would be to let this code live on HEAD if it
> is not ready to be merged as there is a risk of creating side issues
> with things tied to the costing still ready to be merged, so I agree
> that the reversion done on both branches is the way to go for now.
> This could always be reworked and reproposed in the future.
[RMT-hat]
Just to follow things procedure-wise[1], while there do not seem to be
any objections to reverting through regular community processes, I do
think the RMT has to make this ask as Tomas (patch committer) has not
commented and we are up against release deadlines.
Based on the above discussion, the RMT asks for a revert of db0d67db2 in
the v15 release. The RMT also recommends a revert in HEAD but does not
have the power to request that.
We do hope to see continued work and inclusion of this feature for a
future release. We understand that the work on this optimization is
complicated and appreciate all of the efforts on it.
Thanks,
Jonathan
[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Release_Management_Team
