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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't really like either option, because, on the one hand, this is a
> pretty invasive thing to go rip out -- maybe we don't have to rip out
> the entire patch series, but just some of the later patches? -- and on
> the other hand, keeping it in the tree will require work, and I'm
> busy.  But there don't seem to be any other options.

I was wondering if we could simply remove the syntax (and documentation),
and leave the infrastructure in place until things are fixed.  I think
everybody wants this feature, there's just concern about stabilizing it
in time for v10.
        regards, tom lane