Hi Amit,
On 2023-Mar-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Mar-29, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Though, I wonder if we need to keep ec386948948 that introduced the
> > notion of part_prune_index around if the project that needed it [1]
> > has moved on to an entirely different approach altogether, one that
> > doesn't require hacking up the pruning code.
>
> Hmm, that's indeed tempting.
We have an open item about this, and I see no reason not to do it. I
checked, and putting things back is just a matter of reverting
589bb816499e and ec386948948, cleaning up some trivial pgindent-induced
conflicts, and bumping catversion once more. Would you like to do that
yourself, or do you prefer that I do it? Ideally, we'd do it before
beta1.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/