Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
>>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
>>> bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we're
>>> having converging on a default for the regression tests, which are
>>> a far narrower use-case than "everybody".
>> Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is
>> going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't
>> all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do
>> better than what we've got now. +1 for trying.
> Is there any chance we can move forward here, or is this effort doomed for now?
It seemed like nobody wanted to try to push this forward, and it will take
somebody actively pushing, IMO, for something to happen.
Perhaps we should first try to get a consensus on the regression test
use-case.
regards, tom lane