Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> I also don't feel comfortable hurrying with unnest part to beta2.
> According to the open items wiki page, there should be beta3. Does
> unnest part have a chance for beta3?
Hm. I'd prefer to avoid another forced initdb after beta2. On the
other hand, it's entirely likely that there will be some other thing
that forces that; in which case there'd be no reason not to push in
the unnest feature as well.
I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what
happens.
regards, tom lane