On 2022-08-23 Tu 15:32, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 8/23/22 1:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-08-23 13:18:49 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> Taking RMT hat off, if the outcome is "revert", I do want to ensure
>>> we don't
>>> lose momentum on getting this into v16. I know a lot of time and
>>> effort has
>>> gone into this featureset and it seems to be trending in the right
>>> direction. We have a mixed history on reverts in terms of if/when
>>> they are
>>> committed and I don't want to see that happen to these features. I
>>> do think
>>> this will remain a headline feature even if we delay it for v16.
>>
>> We could decide to revert this for 15, but leave it in tree for HEAD.
>
> If it comes to that, I think that is a reasonable suggestion so long
> as we're committed to making the requisite changes.
>
>
One good reason for this is that way we're not fighting against the node
changes, which complicate any reversion significantly.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
