From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
        Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
In-reply-to: <20220831154916.pgspuz3bp4427int@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqH8gTp2uNN3QtgeOSgHhZUZz1=0U+JObJJUmEoch_269Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220830092008.6dbublx6la226zis@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+HiwqFvP23i3kTHt6TW4FqO6he1YSJXeyGOdFV_YbP=xeS99A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f54ebd2b-0e67-d1c6-4ff7-5d732492d1a0@postgrespro.ru>
 <CA+HiwqHLVPdA7e3Y-S5giKPsqQPf8M0nuvgz8+3D8GjQexXLYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqECHA0aUi0Bo3tdYTJ27i2MRWUZ5BewQoO0WgRvRXQO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <abd31e0b-56aa-044f-6700-8a1c1bba87f1@dunslane.net>
 <2276d20d-43ff-f9f6-5c9c-c2875739e66c@postgresql.org>
 <20220831154916.pgspuz3bp4427int@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:49:16 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4151122.1661961884.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:04:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4151123.1661961884@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4151123.1661961884%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-08-31 10:20:24 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> Andres, Robert, Tom: With this recent work, have any of your opinions
>> changed on including SQL/JSON in v15?

> I don't really know what to do here. It feels blatantly obvious that thi=
s code
> isn't even remotely close to being releasable. I'm worried about the imp=
act of
> the big revert at this stage of the release cycle, and that's not gettin=
g
> better by delaying further. And I'm getting weary of being asked to make=
 the
> obvious call that the authors of this feature as well as the RMT should =
have
> made a while ago.

I have to agree.  There is a large amount of code at stake here.
We're being asked to review a bunch of hastily-produced patches
to that code on an even more hasty schedule (and personally
I have other things I need to do today...)  I think the odds
of a favorable end result are small.

> From my POV the only real discussion is whether we'd want to revert this=
 in 15
> and HEAD or just 15. There's imo a decent point to be made to just rever=
t in
> 15 and aggressively press forward with the changes posted in this thread=
.

I'm not for that.  Code that we don't think is ready to ship
has no business being in the common tree, nor does it make
review any easier to be looking at one bulky set of
already-committed patches and another bulky set of deltas.

I'm okay with making an exception for the include/nodes/ and
backend/nodes/ files in HEAD, since the recent changes in that
area mean it'd be a lot of error-prone work to produce a reverting
patch there.  We can leave those in as dead code temporarily, I think.

			regards, tom lane