Re: what to revert

Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 13:03, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> 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