Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axzfg-0000sk-Nz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 16:29:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axzfg-00045k-Ad for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 16:29:08 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axzff-00044t-8c for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 16:29:07 +0000 Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com ([8.23.224.60]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1axzfb-0003o1-E5 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 16:29:06 +0000 X-No-IP: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [216.155.90.98]) (Authenticated sender: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 41123400941; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 856AA438; Wed, 4 May 2016 13:28:53 -0300 (CLST) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 13:28:53 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Craig Ringer Cc: Euler Taveira , Peter Geoghegan , Andres Freund , Robert Haas , Tom Lane , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: what to revert Message-ID: <20160504162853.GA105813@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Craig Ringer wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 13:03, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > Question is: is the actual code so useless that it can't even be a 1.0 > > release? > > What's committed suffers from a design problem and cannot work correctly, > nor can it be fixed without an API change and significant revision. The > revised version I posted yesterday is that fix, but it's new code just > before beta1. It's pretty much equivalent to reverting the original patch > and then adding a new, corrected implementation. If considered as a new > feature it'd never be accepted at this stage of the release. To make it worse, we don't have test code for a portion of the new functionality: it turned out that the test module only tests half of it. And in order to test the other half, we have a pending patch for some pg_recvlogical changes, but we still don't have the actual test script. So we would need to 1. commit the pg_recvlogical patch, assuming it's OK now. 2. write the test script to use that 3. commit the fix patch written a few days ago (which is still unreviewed). We could also commit the fix without the test, but that doesn't seem a great idea. As Craig, I am not happy with this outcome. But realistically I think it's the best decision at this point. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers