Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 13 July 2015 at 14:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TBH, I think the right thing to do at this point is to revert the entire
>> patch and send it back for ground-up rework. I think the high-level
>> design is wrong in many ways and I have about zero confidence in most
>> of the code details as well.
> There are no issues relating to security or data loss, just various fixable
> issues in a low-impact feature, which in my view is an important feature
> also.
There is a *very large* amount of work needed here, and I do not hear you
promising to do it. What I'm hearing is stonewalling, and I am not happy.
regards, tom lane