| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/JSON features for v15 |
| Date: | 2022-08-23 19:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | 78040b98-83c8-7eb0-54c0-24ce48c487d9@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/23/22 1:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-08-23 13:18:49 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> Taking RMT hat off, if the outcome is "revert", I do want to ensure we don't
>> lose momentum on getting this into v16. I know a lot of time and effort has
>> gone into this featureset and it seems to be trending in the right
>> direction. We have a mixed history on reverts in terms of if/when they are
>> committed and I don't want to see that happen to these features. I do think
>> this will remain a headline feature even if we delay it for v16.
>
> We could decide to revert this for 15, but leave it in tree for HEAD.
If it comes to that, I think that is a reasonable suggestion so long as
we're committed to making the requisite changes.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-08-23 19:45:01 | Re: SQL/JSON features for v15 |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-23 19:31:06 | Re: SQL/JSON features for v15 |