Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Any other votes out there?
>
> > Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close
> > to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would
> > be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this.
>
> I'll take the blame for (most of) yesterday's failures in the v10
> branch, but they were unrelated to this patch --- they were because
> of that SIGBUS patch I messed up. So that doesn't seem like a very
> applicable argument. Still, it's true that this seems like the most
> consequential patch that's gone into v10 post-RC1, certainly so if
> you discount stuff that was back-patched further than v10.
I've not been following along very closely- are we sure that ripping
this out won't be worse than dealing with it in-place? Will pulling it
out also require a post-RC1 catversion bump?
If we can pull it out without bumping catversion and with confidence
that it won't cause more problems then, as much as I hate it, I'm
inclined to say we pull it out and come back to it in v11. I really
don't like the idea of a post-rc1 catversion bump and it doesn't seem
like there's a good solution here that doesn't involve more changes and
most likely a catversion bump. If it was reasonably fixable with only
small/local changes and without a catversion bump then I'd be more
inclined to keep it, but I gather from the discussion that's not the
case.
Thanks!
Stephen