Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table

On Thu, Jun  8, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > More generally, I don't think there's ever a
> > time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at
> > least some effort into fixing up afterwards.
> 
> Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found
> now exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for
> a stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been
> putting in". I think it's clear that Kevin is willing to put in some
> work. The issue is that he is unable to *guarantee* that he'll be able
> to put in *sufficient* time, and in light of that concedes that it
> might be best to revert and revisit for Postgres 11. He is being
> cautious, and does not want to *risk* unduly holding up the release.
> 
> That was my understanding, at least.

I think we can all agree that Kevin should have communicated this
earlier, rather than requiring Robert to push him on the issue.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +