Hi,
On 2024-04-15 16:02:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 3:47 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > That said, I don't like the state after applying
> > https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfdvuT6DnguzaV-M1UQ2whYGDojaNU%3D-%3DiHc0A7qo9HBEJw%40mail.gmail.com
> > because there's too much coupling. Hence talking about needing to iterate on
> > the interface in some form, earlier in the thread.
>
> Mmph, I can't follow what the actual state of things is here. Are we
> waiting for Alexander to push that patch? Is he waiting for somebody
> to sign off on that patch?
I think Alexander is arguing that we shouldn't revert 27bc1772fc & dd1f6b0c17
in 17. I already didn't think that was an option, because I didn't like the
added interfaces, but now am even more certain, given how broken dd1f6b0c17
seems to be:
https://postgr.es/m/20240415201057.khoyxbwwxfgzomeo%40awork3.anarazel.de
> Do you want that patch applied, not applied, or applied with some set of
> modifications?
I think we should apply Alexander's proposed revert and then separately
discuss what we should do about 041b96802ef.
> I find the discussion of "too much coupling" too abstract. I want to
> get down to specific proposals for what we should change, or not
> change.
I think it's a bit hard to propose something concrete until we've decided
whether we'll revert 27bc1772fc & dd1f6b0c17.
Greetings,
Andres Freund