Re: what to revert

Hi,

On 2016-05-04 13:35:02 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Honestly, I don't see any strong ground in which to base a revert threat
> for this feature.

It's datastructures are badly designed. But releasing it there's no
pressure to fix that.  If this were an intrinsic cost - ok. But it's
not.


> It doesn't scale as well as we would like in the case
> where a high-level is fully stressed with a read-only load -- okay.  But
> that's unlikely to be a case where this feature is put to work.

It'll be just the same in a read mostly workload, which is part of the
case for this feature.


> So I think accepting the promise that this feature would be improved
> in a future release to better support that case is good enough.

I've not heard any such promise.


Greetings,

Andres Freund