Re: what to revert

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.

A lot of (complex) features were introduced with the notion
> that will be improved in the next version.

Absolutely, and this is what Petr and I (and Andres, though less actively
lately) have both been trying to do in terms of building on logical
decoding to add logical replication support. This is one small piece of
that work.

It's a pity since I'll have to maintain a patchset for 9.6 for people who
need physical HA support for their logical decoding and replication
clients. But it doesn't change the WAL format or catalogs, so it's pretty
painless to swap into existing installations. It could be worse.

However, if the code is buggy
> or there are serious API problems, revert them.
>

Exactly. That's the case here.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services