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.
I thought I had done so clearly enough, happy to do so again.
I promise that either work will be done, or the patch will be reverted. Since I have more time now, I view that as a realistic prospect.
What I'm hearing is stonewalling, and I am not happy.
I'm not sure what you mean by that but it sounds negative and is almost certainly not justified, in this or other cases.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services