On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>>> I would prefer not to bump it to the next CF unless we decide this will
>>> not get fixed for 9.6.
>>
>> It may make sense to add that to the list of open items for 9.6
>> instead. That's not a feature.
>
> So I have moved this patch to the next CF for now, and will work on
> fixing it rather soonishly as an effort to stabilize 9.6 as well as
> back-branches.
Well, not that soon at the end, but I am back on that... I have not
completely reviewed all the code yet, and the case of index relation
referring to a relation optimized with truncate is still broken, but
for now here is a rebased patch if people are interested. I am going
to get as well a TAP tests out of my pocket to ease testing.
--
Michael