| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect |
| Date: | 2023-05-17 06:17:13 |
| Message-ID: | ZGRxaU9ZYySyC3Xw@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 12:25:20PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> [RMT hat]
>
> I read through the original thread[1] to understand the use case and also
> the concerns, but I need to study [1] and this thread a bit more before I
> can form an opinion.
>
> The argument that there is "demand from users" is certainly one I relate to,
> but there have been high-demand features in the past (e.g. MERGE, SQL/JSON)
> that have been reverted and released later due to various concerns around
> implementation, etc. The main job of the RMT is to ensure a major release is
> on time and is as stable as possible, which will be a major factor into any
> decisions if there is lack of community consensus on an open item.
(note: Not RMT this year)
This thread had no replies for the last two weeks, and beta1 is
planned for next week. Alexander, what are your plans here?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-17 06:18:58 | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-17 05:39:10 | Re: Conflict between regression tests namespace & transactions due to recent changes |