> On 25 Aug 2026, at 18:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> #2 has been cut back in scope enough that I don't think we would have accepted
> the feature originally if it had been subject to those limitations, which IMHO
> is a reasonable argument for a revert but also not conclusive.
I don't think that is an argument for reverting, I think it's an argument for
blocking progress by making perfect the enemy of good.
> I'm pretty scared about all of #1-#3 having a long tail of bugs that we haven't
> found yet, in pretty critical areas.
I'll prepare a revert.
--
Daniel Gustafsson