On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What I'm hearing is a whole lot of hypothesizing and zero evidence of
> actual field requirements. On the other side of the coin, we've already
> wasted significant person-hours on fixing this feature's memory leakage,
> and now people are proposing to expend more effort on solving^Wpapering
> over its performance issues by adding yet more user-visible complication.
> It's already adding too much user-visible complication IMO --- I know
> because I was just copy-editing the documentation about that yesterday.
>
> I say it's time to stop the bleeding and rip it out. When and if
> there are actual field requests to have a way to do this, we can
> discuss what's the best way to respond to those requests. Hacking
> VACUUM probably isn't the best answer, anyway. But right now,
> we are past feature freeze, and I think we ought to jettison this
> one rather than quickly kluge something.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. -1 from me.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com