Re: SQL/JSON features for v15

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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>, 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 19:45:01
Message-ID: dcb47175-d9e2-57be-4f41-aab1cb5c20de@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2022-08-23 Tu 15:32, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> 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.
>
>

One good reason for this is that way we're not fighting against the node
changes, which complicate any reversion significantly.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-08-23 19:54:20 Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2022-08-23 19:32:14 Re: SQL/JSON features for v15