Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

From: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table
Date: 2017-06-07 00:57:52
Message-ID: CAMjNa7fqM8eRitHMfzVtXGZ_38g0kSie3MXvcWSAsJQpNs6ycA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> I'll give it a few days for objections before reverting.
>>
>
> I can only say that the lack of this feature comes up on a weekly basis on
> IRC, and a lot of people would be disappointed to see it reverted.
>

Not that my opinion matters, but I was very much looking forward to this
feature in Postgres 10, but I understand if it just won't be stable enough
to stay in.

I have my fingers crossed these issues can be resolved.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-06-07 01:00:14 Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table
Previous Message Joe Conway 2017-06-07 00:52:50 Re: BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table